Sitting of 19 October 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From North Kensington; and, Woodford and other places; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Bozeat; Broughton; Chieveley and other places; Cransley; Cromhall and other places; Earls Barton (two); Grendon; Harrowden; Higham Ferrers (three); Irchester (three); Irthlingborough (two); Kempsford; Kettering (seven); Lamborne and other places; Little Addington; Mears Ashby; North Corney; Rushden (six); Sapperton and Siddington; South Corney and other places; Sywell: Theale and other places; and, Wellingborough (thirteen); to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Griffiths Town, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Alva, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Petition of the Irish Trades Union Congress, for legislation to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (SPECIAL EXCEPTION—MEAL TIMES).
  Copy presented, of Order dated 13th October, 1908, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 40 (4) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exceptions under that section to Florists' Workshops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (SPECIAL EXCEPTION — HOLIDAYS).
  Copy presented, of Order dated 13th October, 1908, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 45 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting a special exception under that section in respect of the women and young persona employed in (a) Florists' Workshops, (b) Hospital Laundries in Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS—EMPLOYMENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE ON THE SAME DAY).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 13th October, 1908, made by the Secretary of Stake for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 46 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting a special exception under that section to Florists' Workshops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (SPECIAL EXCEPTION—OVERTIME).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 13th October, 1908, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 49 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exception under that section to certain non-textile Factories and Workshops and revoking the Orders of 29th December, 1903 and 15th November, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Conveyance of Fish from Trawlers made under Section 417 of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT. 1906.
  Copies presented, of Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 20) Warrant, 1908, dated 15th August 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  OLD-AGE PENSION ACT, 1908.
  Copy presented, of Old-Age Pensions Regulations, dated 15th October, 1908,

  695
  [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 29th February 1908, and of Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURE STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Agriculture Statistics of Ireland for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Act of Sederunt regulating the Fees of Sheriff Officers in the Sheriff Courts in Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4149 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1908.
  Orders [16th October] for printing Papers relative thereto, read, and discharged.
  CATTLE-DRIVES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "by counties and quarterly periods, of the number of Cattle-drives reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary to have taken place in Ireland from the 1st day of January, 1907 to the 30th day of September, 1908."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Discharge of Joiners from Pembroke Dockyard.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that when joiners are discharged from the Royal Dockyard at Pembroke a large and undue proportion of those discharged are men who are members of a trade union, the reason being given that they will receive 10s. per week from their trade society, whilst those that do not belong to a society will get nothing; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this treatment of workmen who belong to a trade union.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No joiners have been discharged at Pembroke Dock during the last three years. The selection of the joiners who were discharged in 1904–5 was determined according to service and capability, and, so far as can be ascertained, there is nothing to support the suggestion that membership of a trade union or otherwise was taken into consideration.

  Old-Age Pensions Rules.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an allowance of 10s. per week made by an employer to an old servant is means within the meaning of the Old Age Pensions Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The point referred to in the Question is, with some others, at present receiving consideration, and a definite answer cannot at the moment be given.

  Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amounts, gross and net, of the Supplementary Estimates submitted to this House during ths financial year 1907–8, with the Department responsible for each.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statement gives the information required by the hon. Member.

  Supplementary Estimates, 1907–8.

  Number of House of Commons Paper.

  Service.

  Gross Amount.

  Net Amount.

  Accounting Department.

  £

  £

  28/08

  Army

  358,000

  100

  War Office

  143/07

  Colonial Services (Jamaica, Earthquake)

  150,000

  150,000

  Colonial Office

  263/07

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  5,700

  5,700

  Office of Works

  Colonial Office

  2,200

  2,200

  Colonial Office

  Board of Education

  200,000

  200,000

  Board of Education

  Public Education, Scotland

  11,000

  11,000

  Scottish Education Department

  Colonial Services

  132,690

  132,690

  Colonial Office

  Expenses under Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

  200,000

  200,000

  Treasury

  Repayments to Civil Contingencies Fund

  14,439

  14,439

  Treasury

  27/08

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  101,750

  100,000

  Board of Agriculture

  Mint, including Coinage

  2,370

  20

  Mint

  Public Trustee

  2,270

  1,870

  Public Trustee

  Treasury Chest Fund

  327

  327

  Treasury

  Post Office

  260,000

  260,000

  Post Office

  35/08

  Law Charges, &c, Ireland

  2,500

  2,500

  Chief Secretary's Office

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  5,000

  5,000

  Inspector General, Royal Irish Constabulary

  Board of Education

  6,000

  6,000

  Board of Education

  1,454,246

  1,091,846

  In addition to the above Supplementary Estimates, the sum of £50,000 was voted as a grant to the Earl of Cromer, on the presentation of a Message from His Majesty the King.

  Persons in Prison for Riot and Unlawful Assembly.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of persons in prison on 12th October under the Act of Edw. 3 in default of finding sureties for their good behaviour in respect of riot and unlawful assembly.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number was forty-one.

  Boycotted Persons under Police Protection in Ireland.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of boycotted persons under police protection on 30th September 1907, and 30th September 1908.

  Strength and Establishment of the Regular Army (exclusive of Staff and of Colonial Corps) on the 1st October, 1905 and 1st October, 1908.

  British Establishment.

  Arm.

  Establishment.

  Strength.

  Officers.

  Other ranks.

  Total.

  Officers.

  Other ranks.

  Total.

  Cavalry

  571

  14,287

  14,858

  551

  13,195

  13,746

  Artillery

  Horse and Field

  781

  19,307

  20,088

  805

  19,667

  20,472

  Garrison

  730

  17,058

  17,788

  737

  18,126

  18,863

  Infantry

  3,470

  103,327

  106,797

  3,286

  100,603

  103,889

  Other Arms

  2,078

  23,660

  25,738

  2,091

  23,258

  25,349

  Total

  7,630

  177,639

  185,269

  7,470

  174,849

  182,319

  Cavalry

  571

  13,975

  14,546

  536

  13,540

  14,076

  Artillery

  Horse and Field

  742

  18,565

  19,307

  710

  17,920

  18,630

  Garrison

  595

  13,015

  13,610

  664

  13,397

  14,061

  Infantry

  3,315

  93,310

  96,625

  3,233

  92,840

  96,073

  Other Arms

  2,155

  21,171

  23,326

  2,103

  21,100

  23,203

  Total

  7,378

  160,036

  167,414

  7,246

  158,797

  166,043

  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 30th September, 1907, the number of boycotted persons receiving special police protection was fifty-two, and on 30th September, 1908, the number was eighty-four. To avoid misconception, however, it should be understood that there are some boycotted persons who do not receive police protection, and conversely that some persons who receive police protection are not boycotted.

  Strength of the Regular Army.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary for War if he will state the strength, both in officers and men, of the Regular Army serving with the colours on 1st October, 1905, and 1st October, 1908, respectively, giving in each case separate figures for cavalry, artillery, and infantry.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)

  Indian Establishment.

  Arm.

  Establishment.

  Strength.

  Officers.

  Other ranks.

  Total.

  Officers.

  Other ranks.

  Total.

  Cavalry

  261

  5,374

  5,635

  256

  6,507

  6,763

  Artillery

  Horse and Field

  327

  9,463

  9,790

  321

  9,757

  10,078

  Garrison

  208

  4,855

  5,063

  203

  5,108

  5,311

  Infantry

  1,508

  52,186

  53,694

  1,442

  53,677

  55,119

  Other Arms

  704

  122

  826

  671

  119

  790

  Total

  3,008

  72,000

  75,008

  2,893

  75,168

  78,061

  Cavalry

  261

  5,382

  5,643

  271

  6,505

  6,776

  Artillery

  Horse and Field

  380

  10,742

  10,852

  345

  10,096

  10,441

  Garrison

  206

  4,770

  4,976

  205

  4,659

  4,864

  Infantry

  1,508

  52,232

  53,740

  1,473

  51,470

  52,943

  Other Arms

  766

  178

  944

  798

  172

  970

  Total

  3,121

  73,304

  76,155

  3,092

  72,902

  75,994

  Administration of the Poor Law in Poplar.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether be is aware of the interpretation put upon the Order which issued from his office this year relating to the modified workhouse test, under which the Poplar guardians are disbursing relief up to a maximum of 17s. 6d. a week to the families of men employed at the farm colonies at Laindon and Forest Gate; and whether he proposes to make another investigation into the administration of the Poor Law in Poplar.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the action taken under the Order referred to. That Order has now lapsed and in lieu of it a new one has been issued, laying down amended conditions under which relief may be given out of the workhouse by the Poplar guardians to the families of able-bodied men who are relieved in the workhouse. I hope that it will not be necessary that any further inquiry should be held of the kind suggested in the Question.

  Assessment of Railway Companies.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to take any steps to protect railway companies against over-assessment under the parochial system now in force, and to provide for their assessment in respect of total net annual value.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) If a railway company considers that it is over-assessed, its remedy is to appeal against the assessment. I am not myself empowered to take any action in the matter. Whether there should be any alteration in the law with regard to the assessment of railways is a matter which will receive consideration in connection with the Valuation Bill.

  Work for Unemployed at Leeds.
  MR. FELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the afforestation work undertaken near Leeds to provide work for the unemployed last year is being continued; and, if so, how many men are now employed; and how much money will be devoted to it this winter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The afforestation work on the Leeds Corporation
  704
  Waterworks estate is being continued. I learn that some of the unemployed are already engaged on the work, and that it is intended to expend £600 this winter in the wages of unemployed, and a similar amount in the wages of experienced men.
  MR. FELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if any Report or statement can be laid before the House giving the result of the afforestation experiment at Leeds, so far as it has gone, with the number of unemployed who were engaged, the acreage and number of trees planted, and the cost of the experiment.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The waterworks engineer of the Leeds Corporation has made a report on the result of three seasons' afforestation work on the corporation's waterworks estate. The following are the totals of the figures for the three years 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8—

  Number of unemployed engaged

  476

  Area planted

  514 acres

  Number of trees planted

  1,514,300

  Cost of the experiment, including £1,043 spent in 1904–5 for barracks

  £7,194.

  Local Government Board and the Motor Speed Limit.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the statements made at a meeting of the Guildford District Council to the effect that the Local Government Board put every block in the way of getting a speed limit for motors in villages; whether the same district council supported the action of the Send and Ripley parishes for the fixing of a speed-limit in those villages; and what action he has taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings of the Guildford Rural District Council at which the statements referred to were made. It appears that the Surrey County Council have had before them a number of applications from various parts of the county for the imposition of low speed-limits for motor cars. Three of

  705
  these proposals they have put forward to the Local Government Board, and I have directed local inquiry upon them. None of these proposals relate to the parishes of Send or Ripley.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what action has been taken by him with regard to the application made by the Middlesex County Council and the Staines Rural District Council for the fixing of a ten-mile speed-limit for motor cars in a certain part of the parish of Shepperton.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) An inquiry has been held with reference to the application, and the Board have informed the Middlesex County Council that they have decided to comply with it. The order will be issued as soon as the notices indicating the reduced speed-limit are ready for erection.

  Unemployed and Poor Relief.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the reports of several distress committees in London to the effect that the regulation that an applicant for work must not have received poor relief within the preceding twelve months operates with great hardship in particular cases, especially when the relief given has been only to the extent of two or three shillings, and perhaps on one occasion only; and whether he will repeal this regulation, so that the distress committees may be free to deal with each case on its merits.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Camberwell Distress Committee that the regulation that the applicant for work must not have received assistance on relief works in two successive years preceding his application presses hardly on those engaged in season trades; and whether, pending more effective provision for those engaged in such trades, he will suspend this regulation.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may be allowed to answer together this and the Question which follows it on
  706
  the Paper. The reports to which my hon. friend refers have been brought under my notice and I have given attention to the points raised in them. As, however, the subject of the unemployed is now under the consideration of the Government, I think it better to defer for the moment giving a decision with regard to them.

  Publication of Report of Poor Law Commission.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the date on which the Poor Law Commission Report will be received.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Royal Commission are now engaged in considering their Report, and I understand that they are making every effort to accelerate its completion. It is hoped that it will be presented by the end of the year.

  Motor Speed-Limit in London Parks.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state by what law power is given to limit the speed of motor vehicles to ten miles an hour in the London parks, and for what reason the power is not exercised to impose the same limit of speed in the crowded thoroughfares of the metropolis.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The authority for the limitation of the speed of motor cars in the royal parks in London is the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, and the statutory rules made thereunder. The Act only applies to "the royal parks, gardens, and possessions, the management of which is for the time being vested in the Commissioners" of His Majesty's Works, and the powers conferred by it could not be exercised as regards the speed of motor cars in the streets.

  Limiting of Speed of Motor Vehicles.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state how many applications were made to the Local Government Board by local authorities for orders to reduce the speed of motor cars to ten miles an hour in the years 1904 and 1905, and how many since; which are the local authorities who have so

  707
  applied and when; and in how many cases the applications were granted prior to 1906, and in how many since.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) During the years 1904 and 1905, forty-eight applications were made to the Local Government Board by local authorities for the reduction of the speed of motor cars to ten miles per hour on certain roads, namely, seven by county councils and forty-one by town councils. Since 1905 there have been fifty-four such applications, namely, thirty-seven by county councils and seventeen by town councils. In a considerable number of cases these applications have been subsequently abandoned or allowed to lapse. No order fixing a speed limit of ten miles was issued in 1904, one was issued in 1905. Since that date twenty such orders have been issued and another is about to issue.

  County Councils and Licence Duties.
  MR. VERNEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give the date for the transfer to county councils of powers to levy certain duties under the Finance Act, 1908, Section 6; and if he is unable to do so now, whether he will consider the desirability of doing so as soon as possible for the convenience of those engaged in the preliminary work necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It is proposed that the transfer should take effect on the 1st January next.

  Trawling in Prohibited Areas Bill— Second Beading.
  MR. ESSLEMONT:: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, on what date the Second Reading of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill will be taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The date is not yet fixed.

  Alleged Cruelty to Natives at the Franco-British Exhibition.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the exhibition of alleged natives of Ceylon in the Franco-British Exhibition, exposed to climatic and other
  708
  conditions prejudicial to their health; whether the present arrangements have the sanction of the Home Office; and, if not, can he intervene for the protection of these people.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The arrangements made for these persons do not require the sanction of the Home Office, but I have made inquiries, and I am assured by the authorities of the exhibition that they are well supplied with woollen underwear and blankets; that a physician attends regularly at the "Ceylon Village," but up to the present there has not been a single case of serious illness among the natives; and that the sanitary inspector on Saturday last informed the authorities in charge of the village that the living rooms and sleeping accommodation there do not give cause for the slightest complaint.

  Children and Street Trading.
  MR. SMEATON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee in 1901 and the strong expression of opinion by the chief constable of Manchester in 1906, condemnatory of employment of children in street trading, and the fact that in Glasgow and other large cities evidence is forthcoming that street trading leads to grave physical and moral deterioration of boys and girls, he will insert a clause in the Children Bill making it illegal for boys or girls under sixteen to be engaged in street trading on any terms whatsoever, or, as an alternative, a clause raising the age below which street trading is illegal from eleven to fourteen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It is not proposed to insert any provision in the Children's Bill on the subject of street trading, for reasons which were explained by me in reply to a Question on the 12th March last by the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex. As has already been announced, the Government will propose next session the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the question of street trading by children and young persons.

  Inspectorships of Factories.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home

  709
  Department whether the principle of nomination for permission to sit at public competitive examinations for inspectorships and assistant inspectorships of factories still exists in his department; if so, will he say what are the advantages to the country in so restricting these examinations to those who have influence; and whether he will make these appointments in future open to merit apart from social status.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the second part is that the hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension in supposing that social influence has anything whatever to do with the selection of a candidate. If my hon. friend will refer to the debate on the Home Office Estimates on the 18th July 1907, he will see in detail the arguments for the present system.

  Extra Police employed during Suffragists' Disturbance.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of police were employed in and around the Palace of Westminster, including Trafalgar Square, during the last week; how many were drawn from reserves; and what extra remuneration will be paid, in view of the protracted nature of their services.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I do not think it is advisable to publish full details of the strength of the police employed on certain occasions, and no doubt my hon. friend will agree that this objection is not unreasonable. All the men employed beyond their regular hours will receive equivalent time off.

  Traction Engines on Highways.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that owners of traction engines habitually ignore the requirement of Section 29 of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878, that one person shall precede the locomotive at least twenty yards on foot to assist drivers of horses; and whether he will issue a circular to chief constables
  710
  of counties as to this prevision and take steps to secure that the law is enforced.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State, for the Home Department whether he is aware that proprietors of light traction engines appear to be under the impression that the sole condition enabling them to work as motors without the presence of a third man is that they shall be under six tons in weight, and that the police in many counties appear to share this impression; and whether he will call the attention of chief constables of counties to the further requirement of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, that such traction engines can only work without a third man if they emit neither smoke nor vapour except as a temporary or accidental matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I will answer these Questions together. The central authority for the purposes of the Locomotives Act is the Local Government Board, and I will consult with my right hon. friend the President as to whether it is desirable to issue a circular to the police on the points mentioned by my hon. friend.

  Licences for the Sale of Liquor.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any statistics are available of the number of licences in existence in the United Kingdom year by year from any period anterior to the Licensing Act of 1872; if not, what is the earliest date from which such figures could be given; and whether he would consent to a Return being ordered of the number of licences in each year for such period, distinguishing the number of on-licences from the number of off-licences, and exhibiting separately the proportion of licences in each class to every 10,000 of population, as well as the like numbers and proportion for each of the three Kingdoms separately.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) If the right hon. Gentleman desires statistics of licensed premises similar to those which are now issued annually from my Department, I have to say that, after causing the existing Parliamentary Papers on the subject for England and Wales to be examined, I am afraid that

  711
  they, though numerous from the year 1873 onwards, as will be seen from the indexes, are of such a nature that even if it were possible within a reasonable time to condense them into a single Return, the result would not be sufficiently complete and trustworthy to be of any value. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Board of Inland Revenue prepared for the Royal Commission on Licensing Laws a statement of licences issued by them from the year 1829 onwards, see page 426 and onwards of Volume 1 of the Minutes of Evidence, published by that Commission, and that since the date of that statement the Board's annual Reports give similar figures. For various reasons, which the right hon. Gentleman will understand, these figures of Excise licences are not strictly comparable with the figures of licensed premises, and I doubt whether it would serve his purpose to reissue them in a special Return, giving the proportions borne by the various classes of Excise licences to population.

  Accident at Dalbeath Pit.
  MR. PONSONBY: To ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the death of Robert Adamson in November last year by the collapse of a brick arch in the Dalbeath Pit, belonging to the Fife Coal Company; whether, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the public inquiry which was held, instructions will be given for a further public inquiry or a Home Office inquiry being instituted into the whole facts and circumstances connected with the accident; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing an order allowing the representatives of injured or deceased workmen to get access to the locus of an accident immediately after it happens.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I am having inquiries instituted into this matter by the Crown Office and on the spot, and I should be glad to communicate the result of these to my hon. friend either privately or in answer to a Question, say, in ten days time.

  Messrs. J. and P. Coats' Request to Public Prosecutor.
  MR. H. C. LEA: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he has received a request from Messrs. J. and
  712
  P. Coats, Limited, Paisley, to prosecute a firm of coal factors for a gross case of fraud, which latter could not have been perpetrated unless it had been connived at by the colliery who supplied the coal, who, to bolster up the fraud, issued a false certificate as to the quality; whether, accompanying that request to prosecute, there was documentary evidence of the clearest character to insure a conviction; and, if so, why a prosecution was not instituted by the Public Prosecutor.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I do not think it would be either in the public interest or fair to the parties concerned to canvass the narrative given in the Question. I must not, however, be held as acquiescing in it as accurate. But upon the specific point put whether the documentary evidence was such as to insure a criminal conviction I have to inform the hon. Member that I personally and carefully considered the documents and available evidence in this case and came to hold the opinion, confirming that of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, that these were not such as would secure a criminal conviction of the persons against whom Messrs. Coats made this charge of fraud. This being so, it would have been improper for me to order proceedings. It is open to Messrs. Coats to institute a civil action of damages in respect of the matter complained of, but this, for some reason, they delay or decline to do.

  Richmond Park.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what steps have been taken to fulfil the promise that portions of Richmond Park should be thrown open to the public and that game preserving should cease; and if he is prepared to state whether any ground or woods have boon thrown open, and, if so, the acreage.
  (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) My attention has been drawn to certain inaccurate statements which have appeared on this subject. I am glad to be able to assure the House that they are absolutely without foundation. By direction of His Majesty game preserving in Richmond Park has entirely ceased since the death of the late Duke of Cambridge. A certain number of pheasants, partridges, and hares breed wild in the park, but no

  713
  game is preserved or shot. More than 100 acres of covert and paddock have been thrown open to the public, cricket and football grounds have been made, and a miniature rifle range has been established. It is hoped that it may be possible to make further additions to the park, but, as my hon. friend will readily understand, we are obliged to keep certain coverts closed in order to encourage the wild birds, which are one of the most charming and interesting features of the park.

  Accuracy of Discussion Reported in Cd. 4185 (1908).
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the report of a discussion set out in Command Paper 4185, of 1908, which took place on the 13th of May between the Secretary to the Board of Education and a deputation representative of educational associations on the subject of a teacher's register was ever submitted before publication to the members of the deputation whoso views are there represented, or, if not, what other steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the report which does not profess to be verbatim accurately expresses the views put forward by the deputation.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. But the report was compiled from notes taken at the time and was very carefully revised at the hands of three different officials, each of whom was present throughout the discussion, and it is confidently believed that it accurately expresses what passed. The Board have received no intimation or suggestion from any member of the deputation that this is not the case.

  Constitution of a Registration Council.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education what are the reasons for the delay in giving effect to the provisions of 7 Edw. 7, c. 43, s. 16, regarding the constitution of a registration council.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The proposals for the constitution of a registration council, which were submitted to the Board by a committee comprising delegates from twelve educational associations and which have since been published, have
  714
  elicted protests from various important sections of the teaching profession. The weight attaching to these objections makes it difficult to regard a council so constituted as representative of the profession, as required by the statute. I have referred these protests to the committee, and I am hoping to receive from them revised proposals which will command general agreement.

  Applications for Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of applications received up to date for old-age pensions, giving the number claiming 1s., 2s., 3s., 4s., and 5s. respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total numbers of claims received by pension officers up to the 10th instant amounts to 468,164, of which 273,862 come from England, 131,610 from Ireland, 49,077 from Scotland, and 13,615 from Wales. The information at present in my possession does not enable me to classify these applications according to the amount claimed in each case.

  Consumption of Beer and Spirits.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would be possible to give a Return showing separately for each of the three Kingdoms the amount of spirits and beer consumed per head of the population as shown for the United Kingdom on page 130 of the current number of the Statistical Abstract; and, if so, whether such Return could be carried back to any period before the Licensing Act of 1872.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Return could be given on the lines followed in the Financial Relations Return, but not for any years before 1888.

  Old-Age Pensions Claims.
  MR. VERNEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether applicants for pensions, duly qualified as regards age and in other respects, now in receipt of weekly wages which will terminate at the end of the current year, and who will then be without any income, are justified, under the Pension Act, in claiming full pensions as having no income.

  715
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) In cases in which the applicant has no other means, or where his other means do not exceed £21, the Answer is in the affirmative. The claim, when made, would fall to be dealt with by the committee in accordance with Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, with due regard to the provisions of subsection (3) of that section.

  The Irish Assistant Under-Secretary.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the circumstances which influenced the appointment of Mr. Edward O'Farrell, B.L., to the position of Assistant Under-Secretary; and if he will state in what respects this gentleman's qualifications for the position were considered to be superior to those possessed by Sir F. Cullinan, C.B., the Senior Principal Clerk of the Chief Secretary's office.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) To anyone acquainted with Mr. O'Farrell's services in the Land Commission, the first part of the Question would appear to be quite superfluous. I should strongly deprecate the invidious task of instituting a comparison between Mr. O'Farrell's qualifications and those of Sir Frederick Cullinan, whose ability and public services have been recognised by successive Governments and are fully appreciated by the Lord-Lieutenant, and, if I may say so, by myself.

  Outrages in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of outrages in Ireland recorded as agrarian and non-agrarian, respectively, in which firearms were used, during the period of nine months ended 30th September, 1908: what was the number of such outrages in the corresponding period of 1906 and 1907, respectively; and from what date was the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, which placed restrictions on the issue of licences to keep firearms and provided other safeguards against the traffic in such weapons, withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) During the nine months ending 30th September in each of the years mentioned the numbers of outrages in which firearms have been
  716
  used in Ireland were as follows: 1906 agrarian eighteen, non-agrarian twenty-nine: 1907, agrarian forty-eight, non-agrarian forty; 1908, agrarian 110, non-agrarian fifty-one. The Peace Preservation Act lapsed on 31st December, 1906.

  Use of Firearms in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the increase in the number of recorded cases in Ireland of serious crimes in which firearms have been used since January, 1907; whether the police authorities are of opinion that such increase is due to the withdrawal of the Peace Preservation Act and to the facilities with which firearms are now procurable throughout the country; and whether any, and, if so, what, representations have been made by them to the Government in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is a fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of offences in which firearms have been used. The increase is confined to a comparatively narrow area, of which County Clare forms a large part. The question as to what proportion of the increase, if any, is due to the lapse of the Peace Preservation Act is a highly speculative one. It would be entirely contrary to practice to make any statement as to the purport of the reports of the police authorities upon the subject. These reports, which are confidential, are made for the information of the Government. Persons who wish to commit outrages have never found any great difficulty in obtaining weapons, as is shown by the returns of crime for many of the years in which the Peace Preservation Act was in force.

  Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of police employed at the end of September in affording protection to the occupiers of grazing farms throughout Ireland and in each of the counties of Galway, Roscommon, Leitrim, Longford and Clare; and what was the number of police employed in addition in securing the stock on such farms from molestation.

  717
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The numbers of police employed on 30th September upon the sole duty of affording constant protection to the occupiers of grazing farms were as follows: Galway, sixteen; Roscommon, nil; Leitrim, two; Longford, nil; Clare, nil; Rest of Ireland, thirty-one; Total, forty-nine. The term "occupiers" is interpreted as meaning persons residing on the farms, whether as owners, tenants, or caretakers. A large number of police are employed in giving protection by patrols to the occupiers of grazing farms and in securing the cattle from molestation, but the Inspector-General informs mo that it is impossible to state the number of men so employed, both because the number and personnel of the men vary from day to day and because the men are employed upon other duties besides that of affording protection. In general terms it may be stated that in the disturbed districts the police generally are employed in giving all possible protection whenever necessity arises.

  Official Note taken at United Irish League Meetings.
  MR. MACCAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector-General of Constabulary has instructions to employ official shorthand note-takers at open-air meetings of the United Irish League at which the local police authorities have good reason for believing that language of an illegal or inflammatory character will be used; whether the services of such note-takers have been availed of on the occasion of recent meetings in various districts of the country at which language inciting to boycotting and other criminal courses was employed; and whether the Government have in contemplation the institution of proceedings against such speakers by an application to the King's Bench Division of the Supreme Court for an order requiring them to enter into sureties of the peace and good behaviour.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Constabulary shorthand writers are employed to report open-air meetings from time to time as necessity may arise, and several recent meetings have been so reported. No recent case has arisen in which the Government contemplate the institution of the proceedings indicated in the
  718
  concluding part of the Question. The Government will take such steps to enforce the law as may be advised by the responsible Law Officers of the Crown upon consideration of the facts of each particular case.

  Agrarian Outrages in Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of agrarian outrages reported by the Constabulary in Ireland in the years 1906 and 1907 and during the period of nine months ended 30th September, 1908, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In the year 1906, 234; in the year 1907, 372; and in the nine months ending 30th September, 1908, 418.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of agrarian outrages recorded under the headings firing at the person and firing into dwellings, respectively, which were reported by the Constabulary in Ireland in each of the years 1897 to 1907, inclusive, and during the period of nine months ended 30th September, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures are as follows—

  Firing at the Person.

  Firing into Dwellings.

  1897

  3

  7

  1898

  3

  5

  1899

  3

  7

  1900

  3

  10

  1901

  1

  3

  1902

  2

  4

  1903

  1

  6

  1904

  1

  12

  1905

  2

  9

  1906

  3

  9

  1907

  9

  40

  Nine months ending 30th September, 1908

  10

  55

  Division of the Drogheda Estate.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the occupier of Gurteen Farm, Nurney, County Kildare, on the Drogheda estate, has advertised the interest in his farm for sale; and whether he will

  719
  direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the matter with a view of purchasing the occupier's interest, reinstating the former evicted tenant, and increasing existing uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the townland of Oghill, Monasterevan, County Kildare, on the Drogheda estate, there are thirty holdings varying from one to ten acres; whether his attention has been directed to the advertisement of sale of the late Mr. Conlan's farm of 300 acres at Oghill on the 30th instant, also on the Drogheda estate; and whether he will cause the Estates Commissioners to inquire into the facts with a view to purchasing the late Mr. Conlan's interest and have the lands divided so as to increase the size of the existing uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Purchase agreements have recently been lodged with the Estates Commissioners in respect of twenty-three holdings on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, including an agreement signed by Peter Conlan for the purchase of his holding at Oghill comprising 296 acres. In seventeen out of the twenty-three cases the area of the holding does not exceed ten acres. The Commissioners have no knowledge that the tenant's interest in Conlan's or any other case has been advertised for sale. But in any event, having regard to the statutory conditions under which the Commissioners act, it is not possible for them to attend and bid at sales by auction, nor have they power to make any advance out of the Land Purchase Fund for the purchase of a tenant's interest.

  Camping on Frensham Common.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is in negotiation for or contemplates the formation of a cavalry or other camp on or near Frensham Common, Surrey.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no intention of establishing a permanent camp on Frensham Common. The hon. Member is doubtless aware
  720
  that the troops of the Aldershot Command are frequently encamped on the common every year.

  Weekly Payment of Army Pensions.
  MR. GOULDING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the pensions under the Old-Age Pensions Act are to be paid weekly, he will give instructions for Army pensioners receiving pensions not exceeding £35 a year to be also paid weekly.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight Division of Hampshire on the 14th instant?

  Director-General of Army Finance.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Director-General of Army Finance has been appointed in place of Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson; if not, whether it is intended to appoint such an officer, and, if the office of Director-General is to be abolished or held in suspense, whether an Order in Council will be necessary to regularise the alteration; and upon what officer will the duties of the Director-General of Army Finance devolve.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) An officer has been appointed, with the title of Assistant Financial Secretary, to take the place of Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson as accounting officer to the War Office and to carry on the duties of the post of Director - General of Army Finance, with the exception of contract questions, which will go to the Director of Contracts. The terms of the necessary Order in Council are now under consideration.

  Courts of Quarter Sessions.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number and names of the large boroughs having a separate Court of quarter sessions and also the number and names of those boroughs which, being large boroughs within the meaning of Clause 17 of the Licensing Bill, do not possess a separate Court of quarter sessions.

  721
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The names and numbers of "large boroughs," within the meaning of Clause 17 of the Licensing Bill, with and without separate Courts of quarter sessions, respectively, are as follows:—
  Large Boroughs. (Licensing Bill, Clause 17.)
  (a) With separate Courts of Quarter Session.

  Bath (C.B.).

  Bedford.

  Birkenhead (C.B.).

  Birmingham (C.B.).

  Blackburn (C.B.).

  Bolton (C.B.)

  Bournemouth (C.B.).

  Bradford (C.B.).

  Brighton (C.B.).

  Bristol (C.B.).

  Burnley (C.B.).

  Cambridge.

  Canterbury (C.B.)

  Cardiff (C.B.)

  Carlisle.

  Chester (C.B.).

  Colchester.

  Croydon (C.B.).

  Derby (C.B.).

  Dovonport (C.B.).

  Doncaster.

  Dover.

  Dudley (C.B.).

  Exeter (C.B.).

  Folkestone.

  Gloucester (C.B.).

  Gravesend.

  Great Yarmouth (C.B.).

  Grimsby (C.B.).

  Hanley (C.B.).

  Hastings (C.B.).

  Ipswich (C.B.).

  Kingston-upon-Hull (C.B.).

  Leeds (C.B.).

  Leicester (C.B.).

  Lincoln (C.B.).

  Liverpool (C.B.).

  London (City).

  Maidstone.

  Manchester (C.B.).

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (C.B.).

  Northampton (C.B.).

  Norwich (C.B.).

  Nottingham (C.B.).

  Oldham (C.B.).

  Oxford (C.B.).

  722

  Peterborough (included in the Liberty which has separate Court of Quarter Sessions).

  Plymouth (C.B.).

  Portsmouth (C.B.).

  Reading (C.B.).

  Rochester.

  Rotherham (C.B.).

  Salford (C.B.).

  Scarborough.

  Sheffield (C.B.).

  Shrewsbury.

  Southampton (C.B.).

  Sunderland (C.B.).

  Swansea (C.B.).

  Walsall (C.B.).

  West Bromwich (C.B.).

  West Ham (C.B.).

  Wigan (C.B.).

  Wolverhampton (C.B.).

  Worcester (C.B.).

  York (C.B.).

  Total 66.
  (b) Without separate Courts of Quarter Sessions.

  Accrington.

  Ashton-under-Lyne.

  Aston Manor.

  Barnsley.

  Barrow-in-Furness (C.B.).

  Batley.

  Blackpool (C.B.).

  Bootle (C.B.).

  Burslem.

  Burton-upon-Trent (C.B.).

  Bury (C.B.).

  Chesterfield.

  Coventry (C.B.).

  Crewe.

  Darlington.

  Darwen.

  Dewsbury.

  Eastbourne.

  East Ham.

  Eccles.

  Gateshead (C.B.).

  Halifax (C.B.).

  Harrogate.

  Heywood.

  Hove.

  Huddersfield (C.B.).

  Hyde.

  Jarrow.

  Keighley.

  Kings ton-upon-Thames.

  Lancaster.

  Leamington.

  723

  Leigh.

  Longton.

  Lowestoft.

  Luton.

  Macclesfield.

  Merthyr Tydfil (C.B.).

  Middlesbrough (C.B.).

  Middleton.

  Nelson.

  Newport (Mon.) (C.B.).

  Poole.

  Preston (C.B.).

  Ramsgate.

  Reigate.

  Richmond (Surrey).

  Rochdale (C.B.).

  St. Helens (C.B.).

  Southend-on Sea.

  Smethwick (C.B.).

  Southport (C.B.).

  South Shields (C.B.).

  Stalybridge.

  Stockport (C.B.).

  Stockton-on-Tees.

  Stoke-upon-Trent.

  Swindon.

  Torquay.

  Tunbridge Wells.

  Tynemouth (C.B.).

  Wakefield.

  Warrington (C.B.).

  Wednesbury.

  West Hartlepool (C.B.).

  Total 65.
  "(C.B.)" denotes County Boroughs.

  Number of Cabs—Motor and Horse Drawn.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of taxi-motor cabs licensed on 30th September this year, and also the number of hansoms and four-wheelers licensed on the same date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) On the 30th September the following were the numbers of the different kinds of licensed cabs:—

  Motor cabs

  2,273

  Hansom cabs

  5,095

  Four-wheeled horse cabs

  3,754

  Total

  11,122

  Postal Facilities at Ballina and Crossmolina.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General
  724
  if he is aware that although the day mail arrives at Ballina, county Mayo, at 11.40 a.m., the mail car carrying the mail to the important town of Crossmolina, six miles distant, does not leave Ballina till about 4.30 p.m., and the letters are not delivered till 6.15 p.m. at the earliest; is he aware that large numbers of people get the daily papers by this service as well as their letters, which include all English letters of the preceding day; can he say why it is necessary to start the mail car from Ballina so late; and will he make arrangements whereby it could leave about 12.30 p.m., and so have letters and papers delivered in Crossmolina by 2 o'clock, or thereabouts.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The postal service to Crossmolina is already carried on at a considerable loss to the Revenue, and, as the alteration suggested by the hon. Member would involve additional cost, I should not be justified in adopting it. Moreover, some advantage is gained by the present arrangement, inasmuch as it admits of correspondence posted in Dublin in the morning being delivered at Crossmolina the same day.

  Meals for School Children.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state how many education authorities throughout the country have applied for power to levy a rate with which to supply meals to necessitous children, under Section 3 of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Fifty-seven.

  Completion of Marble Arch Improvements.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state at what date the new gates and lamps at the Marble Arch will be erected, so completing this improvement.
  (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) This is a portion of the improvement for which the London County Council is responsible, but it is expected that the gates and lamps will be erected by the end of this year.

  Warranty on Fat Stock.
  MR. STANIER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the action of the National Federation of Meat Sellers in demanding a warranty on fat stock and the farmers' refusal to give one has been brought to the notice of the Board; and, if so, does the Board propose to take any action.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are carefully watching the discussions which are taking place on this subject, but they do not at present see that they can usefully take any action with regard to it.

  Potato Disease in Dumfries.
  MR. MOLTENO: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state upon what information the county of Dumfries was scheduled as affected with the potato disease known as black scab; whether any notification has been received during the current year of the occurrence of this disease; whether he can state if any steps where taken to verify the notification when first made, and the date of this notification; upon receiving the notification, was an expert sent down to make any examination or inquiry on the spot; was any communication made to the authorities on the spot, such as the County Agricultural Committee; was the locality placed under observation and were any steps taken to deal with and eradicate the disease or circumscribe the area of its occurrence; has any notification been received this year in regard to the occurrence of this disease, and, if so, will he state the neighbourhood in which such disease has occurred and whether any steps have been taken to investigate and report upon this occurrence; whether he is aware of the injury which has been done to the county by placing the whole county in a schedule as if such county were affected throughout; and whether, in view of the fact that the only case reported occurred in a garden last year and that no case has been reported this year from any part of the county, and in view of the injury which has been done by this notification, the Board will be
  726
  prepared to make public all the circumstances connected with this case
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The county of Dumfries has not been scheduled as affected with warty disease of potatoes, but the fact that the disease exists there has been notified to the Press with the view of reminding potato growers that black scab is a notifiable disease under the Destructive Insects and Pests Order of 1908. A notification of the existence of the disease in a garden was received in August last from a potato grower in the county, and the specimen forwarded by him was certified as being affected with black scab by the Board's expert advisers at the Royal Gardens, Kew. The owner was advised as to the nature, prevention, and remedy of the disease. Neither the County Agricultural Committee nor any other local authority are charged with any duties under the Order, and no communication was therefore made to them. An inspector has visited the locality and made a tour of inspection, and though he has found the existence of the disease in two other gardens he has no reason to suppose that it has spread to the farms of the county. The Board, in accordance with their usual practice in dealing with outbreaks of disease, do not propose to publish the names and addresses of the owners of the gardens where the disease exists, but so far as they are aware it has not affected the field crops in this county, and there is no need for alarm.

  Examination of Seamen by Board of Trade.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of cases where seamen have been examined by the nautical surveyors of the Board of Trade when there has been any doubt as to the efficiency of such seamen engaged on board of British ships, and the number of such examinations since the year 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No special record has been kept of the cases to which my hon. friend refers, but inquiries shall be made and the result communicated to him.

  Reservation for Government Use of Line from Essen to Coast of Germany.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the main line from Essen to the North and West Coast of Germany has been and is still being reserved exclusively to the carriage of Government goods, chiefly armaments, so that ordinary trade is sent by a longer route.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have no information on the subject.

  Working of the Inebriates Act in Scotland.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to appoint a Committee to deal with the question of the working of the Inebriates Acts so far as they relate to Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Yes, Sir. The Committee will be appointed very shortly.

  Civil Servants and Confidential Reports.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the injury done to Government servants who have been compelled to retire from the Civil Service in consequence of false reports made in secret by superior officers under cover of confidential memoranda, His Majesty's Government will favourably consider the desirability of the creation of a board of appeal composed of three Privy Councillors, or other persons of suitable qualifications, so that public servants, having no remedy for redress in the Courts owing to the plea of privilege raised on behalf of the Crown, may be able to submit cases of alleged tyranny and oppression to an independent tribunal competent to examine witnesses upon oath.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I see no necessity for the appointment of such a body.

  Preparation of Return of Inland Revenue (Death Duties) Public-Houses.
  MR. WHITBREAD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the issue of the Parliamentary Paper, Inland Revenue (Death Duties) Public-Houses,
  728
  dated 14th May, 1890, and previous to the passing of The Finance Act, 1894, any instructions, and, if so, what instructions, were issued altering the practice of the Inland Revenue Department, as set out in the Paper of 14th May, 1891.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No record can be traced of any instructions being given previous to 1894, altering the practice in force on the 14th May, 1890, in the Inland Revenue Department, in dealing, for Death Duty purposes, with the various interests connected with the sale of intoxicating liquors.

  Income-Tax Exemptions for Charitable Purposes.
  MR. R. PEARCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what total amount was during the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, exempted from income-tax as devoted to charitable purposes in the legal sense.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The amount is £11,105,000.

  Indian Army—Gratuity for Qualifying as Interpreters.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, under War Office Regulations of 1908, officers of the British service are now eligible for pecuniary rewards upon qualifying as interpreters in modern foreign languages, whereas no rewards are granted by the Indian Military Regulations to officers of the Indian Army who similarly qualify as interpreters for European languages, except in Russia; whether, in July, 1908, Indian Army officers who passed, respectively, in German and in French were held to be debarred under existing rules from receiving the gratuity, whereas officers in the British service are eligible for all pecuniary rewards for passing in Oriental languages paid by the Government in India; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of admitting officers of the Indian Army to the same privilege in this respect as those enjoyed by British officers, with effect from the date of the War Office order introducing the new scale of rewards.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The facts are as indicated in the hon.

  729
  Member's Question. The Secretary of State will consult the Government of India as to the advisability of making officers of the Indian Army eligible for rewards for qualifying as interpreters in European languages other than Russian.

  Apportionment of Charges for Maintenance of British Army in India.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, as the result of the consideration by the Committee which sat, under the presidency of Sir Robert Romer, on the question of the future apportionment between the Home and Indian Governments of the charges incurred in the United Kingdom in connection with the maintenance of the British Army in India, the Secretary of State has approved of the present payment by India to the War Office being increased by £300,000 a year from the 1st May, 1908; what direct representation of the interests of India, other than that afforded from the India Office, was furnished on the personnel of the Committee or examined as witnesses before it; and whether the Secretary of State will present the Report and Evidence of the Committee to Parliament, or, failing that, will agree to furnish a summary of the Report and Evidence to Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The recommendations of the Committee over which Sir Robert Romer presided dealt with questions of principle. On the basis of these recommendations the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War have arrived at an agreement that an additional payment of £300,000 a year shall be made, from 1st May, 1908, to cover the cost of the training of troops and other services connected with the maintenance of the British establishment in India. The representatives of India on the Committee were Sir John Edge, K.C., until recently a member of the Council of India, and Lieutenant-General Sir Beauchamp Duff, K.C.B., Chief of the Staff in India. The Committee did not examine witnesses. The Secretary of State does not propose to present the Report to Parliament.

  Sexton of Catholic Church residing at Lixnaw Boys' School.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  730
  of Ireland whether he is aware that Lixnaw boys' school, County Kerry, is partly occupied by the sexton of the managers' church, and that he refuses to quit the premises; and whether, seeing that it is a source of annoyance to the principal teacher, he will cause inquiries to be made with the view of having the man removed to other premises.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in 1898 the then manager of the Lixnaw boys' national school gave possession to the clerk of the Catholic church of that part of the school premises which had formerly been used, but was not then being used, as a girls' school. It appears, however, that the premises have deteriorated by reason of the clerk's occupancy, and the Commissioners are therefore taking steps for the dispossesion of the clerk.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Construction.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to expedite the commencement of the war vessels of this year's programme of new construction, both in the Royal Dockyards and private establishments; on what dates, approximately, does he anticipate that the one battleship, one large armoured cruiser, six fast protected cruisers, sixteen destroyers, and £500,000 worth of submarines will be laid down respectively; and will the necessary money be provided to complete these vessels at correspondingly earlier dates than were originally anticipated.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The tenders for the new torpedo boat destroyers are now under consideration. The battleship of this year's programme will be laid down in January, and the armoured cruiser in February next. One fast protected cruiser was laid down at Pembroke in June, 1908. The tenders for the other five fast protected cruisers which are to be built by contract will be received by 5th

  731
  November. Work on the submarines begins next month. It is not at present expected that the dates for completion will be anticipated. Any requisite money will be provided for the completion of these vessels at the dates the Board may consider necessary.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked if it was proposed that the vessels should be completed at an earlier period so as to give the Navy as well as the unemployed the benefit arising from expediting their laying down.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the expediting of the large battleship and cruiser was to such a small extent that it would not materially affect the final date for completion. The Admiralty did not at present contemplate an earlier date for the completion of the vessels.

  H.M.S. "Gladiator."
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the total cost to date of the operations in connection with the salvage of H.M.S. "Gladiator"; whether he proposes to incur the further expenditure that would be necessary if this vessel is to be restored to a state of fighting efficiency; and, if so, what is the estimated cost of her repairs and refit.
  MR. MCKENNA: The total cost to date is about £54,000. The course to be taken with the vessel will be decided when the estimated cost of repairing her is known.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the Admiralty would consider whether it was worth while to spend the large sum of money necessary to restore the vessel to fighting efficiency seeing that it was already obsolete.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that he did not accept as accurate the statement of the hon. Member, but the Board of Admiralty would of course consider all the circumstances.

  Naval Pensions.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision to make weekly payments
  732
  through the post offices of the allowances under the Old-Age Pensions Act, he will consider the advisability of paying Navy pensioners their allowances weekly also, instead of quarterly, as at present.
  MR. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to similar Questions in this House on Wednesday and Thursday in last week.
  MR. CARLILE: Has any difference of opinion arisen between the Admiralty and the Treasury on this subject which accounts for the character of the Answer referred to?
  MR. McKENNA: So far as I am aware, no communications have passed between the Admiralty and the Treasury on the subject.
  MR. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter serious consideration in view of the reasons I have submitted to him?
  MR. McKENNA: I have given most anxious consideration to the question. The boards of guardians are aware of my decision; yet so far none of them have communicated with me.

  The New Battleships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in September a statement purporting to be issued by the Admiralty was published giving for the new battleships now building of the "St. Vincent" class the armament in guns and torpedoes, the description of gun-mountings, and the number of rounds of ammunition supplied for each gun under the different headings of armour-piercing projectiles and common and lyddite shells, together with shrapnel for the 4-inch guns; and whether he can state if the publication of these details, hitherto regarded as confidential, was authorised by the Admiralty.
  MR. McKENNA: The details given in the statement to which I take my hon. friend to refer are inaccurate, and their publication was unauthorised.

  Dartmouth Naval College.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consent to the publication of the Director of Naval Education's instructions to examiners by which the present system of education of naval cadets at Dartmouth is tested; and whether the Director of Naval Education under the Board of Admiralty is responsible for the system.
  MR. McKENNA: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The Director of Naval Education under the Board of Admiralty is responsible for the system of examination at Dartmouth.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the examination questions have leaked out to the cadets? Will he give me access to the instructions to the examiners?
  MR. McKENNA: I am not aware of the alleged fact that the papers have been given to the cadets. I do not believe it can be true. I cannot give the hon. Member access to the instructions.

  Officers.

  Non-commissioned Officers and Men.

  Yeomanry*

  -

  -

  1,043

  20,106

  Royal Artillery

  -

  -

  704

  12,882

  Royal Engineers

  -

  -

  295

  5,864

  Infantry

  -

  -

  2,474

  56,047

  Army Service Corps

  -

  -

  88

  1,891

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  -

  -

  161

  3,192

  Total, including Yeomanry

  -

  -

  4,765

  99,982

  * In addition, 13 Yeomanry Officers and 85 Non-commissioned Officers and Men attended Camp for less than 15 days.

  MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that 99,000 men of the Territorial Force attended fifteen days in camp?

  The Special Reserve.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present strength of the infantry of the Special Reserve in non-commissioned officers and men and how many of the men are under twenty years of age.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The strength of non-commissioned officers and men of the infantry of the Special Reserve on 1st October was 50,179, and of these 14,704 were under twenty years of age.

  Attendance at Territorial Camps.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Yeomanry attended the annual camp training this year; and how many officers, and non-commissioned officers, and men respectively of the other branches of the Territorial Force attended camp for fifteen days.
  MR. HALDANE: The following are the numbers attending camp for fifteen days or over—
  MR. HALDANE: More than that; if you include officers, 103,000.

  Army Statistics.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the strength, both in officers and men, of the Regular Army serving with, the colours on 1st October, 1905, and 1st October, 1908, respectively, giving in each case separate figures for cavalry, artillery, and infantry.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir. The figures are too long to read out to the House, but I will have them printed with the Votes and Proceedings.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the general effect of the figures?
  MR. HALDANE: The total strength as distinguished from establishment, was, on 1st October, 1905, 182,319, and on 1st October, 1908, 166,043. The difference is largely accounted for by the reduction in the Garrison Artillery.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the Return show the difference in the numbers of the Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE: The number of Reservists was just now much above the normal. It is "higher than in 1905.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is not the increase due entirely to the policy of the late Government?
  MR. HALDANE: The increase in the Reserve is in part due to the three years system.

  Strength of the Territorial Army.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total enlisted strength of the Territorial Army, as compared with its establishment, on 1st October, 1908.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures for non-commissioned officers and men on 1st October, are as follows: Establishment, 302,199; strength, 188,781.

  The Special Reserve.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present strength of the Special Reserve,
  736
  as compared with its establishment; how many of the men already enlisted in the Special Reserve have either joined, or announced their intention of joining, the Regular Army; and what approximate number of vacancies in the Special Reserve does he anticipate will be available for recruits from the ranks of the unemployed during the coming winter.
  MR. HALDANE: The strength of the Special Reserve (all arms) on 1st October was 61,291, out of an establishment of 77,089. 3,951 men had joined the Regular Army by 1st October. It is not possible to say how many men intend to join the Regular Army, as they are not asked on joining the Reserve whether they intend to join the Regular Army. Taking into calculation the probable wastage, it may be estimated that there will be room for about 24,000 being gradually taken during the winter.

  Army Horses.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what sums are annually provided by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Austria, respectively, to encourage the breeding of horses suitable for Army purposes.
  MR. HALDANE: No funds are at present provided from the Army Estimates of the United Kingdom for these purposes. As regards Germany, the estimated expenditure for 1908–9 for Prussia is about £160,000, and for Saxony £11,000; the figures for Wurtemburg and Bavaria are not available. As regards Austria-Hungary, the annual expenditure is about £300,000. As regards France, about £100,000 is spent annually.
  MR. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely what steps are being taken to increase the supply of horses for the Army?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Annual Cost of a Soldier.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of a cavalry soldier of the Line serving at home, and of an infantry soldier, respectively.
  MR. HALDANE: The average annual cost, including charges for barracks, arms, ammunition, etc., of a trained private soldier at home amounts to £61 17s. 2d. for cavalry of the Line, and £57 6s. 4d. for infantry of the Line.

  Army Balloons.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the expenditure on balloon work in 1903–4 was £14,600, and the estimated expenditure for 1908–9 for both balloon and airship construction is only £13,750, he will state what steps he proposes to take to place this country in a position of equality with France and Germany, who are spending large sums of money on aeronautical work.
  MR. HALDANE: Sufficient funds have been provided this year for such experimental work as is considered necessary. The amounts which are expended on experimental aeronautical work at the present time by Germany and France cannot be accepted as a standard of what is desirable for this country to spend.

  The Cavalry.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why 10,349 men of the Regular Army at home were classified as cavalry soldiers on 1st October, 1907, in view of the fact that there were only 7,412 horses and mules on the regimental strength of the cavalry regiments in this country.
  MR. HALDANE: Every cavalry regiment has an establishment of men in excess of that of horses—and this is the case in foreign armies. The peace establishment of horses is practically identical with the war establishment. The peace establishment of men includes recruits and other persons who for obvious reasons do not require individual mounts. The men are, however, all being trained as cavalry soldiers, and therefore are rightly classified as such.
  MR. ASHLEY: But in foreign armies are there only two horses for every three men?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think that arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  Weekly Payment of Army Pensions.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision to make weekly payments through the Post Offices of the allowances under the Old-Age Pensions Act, he will consider the advisability of paying Army pensioners their allowances weekly also, instead of quarterly, as at present.
  MR. HALDANE: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight Division of Hampshire on the 14th instant?
  MR. CARLILE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider a general extension of the principle of weekly payment, in view of the terrible temptation to intemperance arising under the present system?
  MR. HALDANE: We have extended the system very much lately in that direction. But there is a very great difference of opinion as to whether it is desired by the men themselves.
  MR. CARLILE: But do not boards of guardians say it would be a great benefit?
  MR. HALDANE: Well, we have enabled boards of guardians to draw the money and pay it out weekly to men who have resort to the Poor Law.
  *MR. BYLES: Is there not ample evidence at the War Office that the payment of pensions in large sums quarterly is a positive misfortune to a considerable percentage of those who receive them?
  MR. HALDANE: We have dealt with those cases by enabling the guardians to pay the pensions out weekly where it is desired.
  MR. BYLES: And I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that privilege is very much appreciated.

  Case of Captain E. B. Wilson.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Captain E. B. Wilson, 5th Lancers, who was gazetted in

  739
  November, 1907, as placed on half-pay, was allowed to retain his appointment as Superintendent of Gymnasia, Northern Command; whether it is usual for an officer on half-pay to continue in such an important position; whether Captain Wilson regularly appeared in the monthly Army List up to and including August, 1908, as holding the appointment, though never being near the gymnasia nor performing any single duty in connection with the post of superintendent during the whole nine months; whether Captain Wilson received full pay during that period; and, if so, what action the Secretary of State proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. HALDANE: He was allowed to retain his appointment up to 24th March, 1908, when he was removed from his appointment. So far as officers on half-pay are concerned, it is quite usual to give them appointments on the staff. Although he was removed from his appointment on 24th March, 1908, Captain Wilson's name continued to appear in the Army List, through a clerical error, as holding the appointment up to August, 1908. He, however, did no duty in connection with the post of Superintendent of Gymnasia after 24th March. Through an error made by the Army agents, Captain Wilson has been credited with the pay of his appointment from 25th March to 31st August. The over-issue of pay is in course of recovery.

  Army Discharges and Unemployment.
  MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the assertion that his policy of Army reduction has turned thousands of men into the streets; and whether he can inform the House how many men belonging to the disbanded units have been dismissed from the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: I am aware that some highly mendacious statements to this effect have been recently made. No men belonging to the disbanded units were dismissed from the Army. Those who did not complete their service in their units were either posted or voluntarily transferred to other units or transferred to the Reserve at their own
  740
  request on guarantee of obtaining employment.

  London District Command.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State of War whether there is any intention to abolish the London district command; and, if so, into what command will it be absorbed.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir. There is no such intention.

  Lee-Enfield Bullet Velocity.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War seeing that a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second can be obtained in the short Lee-Enfield rifle with a 150-grains bullet without exceeding the pressure which the breech action is amply strong enough to stand, why the ammunition now supplied to the British Army gives only 2,060 feet per second as against the 2,900 feet per second given by the ammunition used in the German Army and the 2,650 feet per second by that used in the United States Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The pattern of cartridge is still under consideration. There are many other details to be considered besides the velocity.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many tons of pressure are exerted on the breech action of the Lee-Enfield rifle by the ammunition now supplied by the Army; and how many tons of pressure would be exerted by a cartridge giving a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second.
  MR. HALDANE: The present ammunition exerts a mean pressure not exceeding 16½ tons at 60°; a cartridge giving a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet seconds would exert a mean pressure not exceeding 18¼ tons at 60° and 19½ tons at 120°. The maximum for any individual round is ½ ton higher in each case.

  Lee-Enfield Rifles.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second can be obtained in the short Lee-Enfield rifle without rapid deterioration of the

  741
  breech bolt and without exposing the user of the rifle to serious risk of accident by the blowing out of the bolt.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he himself, or one of his expert advisers, will give a practical demonstration of the strength of the breech action of the Lee-Enfield rifle by firing fifty rounds of an ammunition giving a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second.
  MR. HALDANE: In reply to this and the next Question, I would inform the hon. Member that exhaustive trials are still in progress under the expert advisers of the Army Council.

  Sisal Bulbilles.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of German East Africa has imposed an export duty of 1,000 per cent. on sisal bulbilles in order to ensure to that Colony the exclusive advantage of an early start in the cultivation of sisal; whether such action does not necessarily prejudice the development of sisal plantations in adjoining British territory; and, if so, whether any action can be taken to procure equal treatment for British planters.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the export duty to which my hon. friend refers, and which no doubt to some extent prejudices the development of sisal plantations in British territory; but it did not appear to be a matter in which His Majesty's Government could properly make official representations to the German Government.

  Settlement of British East Africa.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the natives of the adjacent lowlands of British East Africa ever affected a permanent occupation of the uplands of that Protectorate; and, if not, whether the Government proposes to give European settlers in this region such preferential rights as are usually conceded
  742
  to pioneers and settlers in previously undeveloped territories.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am not quite clear as to the nature or extent of the preferential rights to which my hon. friend refers. It is true that there is much land in the uplands which has not been in permanent occupation by natives, but His Majesty's Government cannot admit that the rights of the natives are confined to land which they have occupied permanently. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to secure to the native tribes of the East Africa Protectorate such a proportion of the land which they have occupied, whether temporary or permanently, in the past, as will not only be adequate to their present requirements but will allow a reasonable margin for a future increase in their numbers; and it is only the land remaining after these conditions have been fulfilled that can be regarded as available for European settlement.
  *MR. REES: Does not that include a greater part of these uplands?
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say without notice.

  British Shipping and East Africa.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the recommendations of the Committee on Shipping Subsidies of 1900 and of the fact that the primary objects of the German East Africa Steamship Company are to develop German East Africa and to promote German trade, in pursuance of which purposes its mail steamers call at one British, and at three German, East African ports, the Government will consider the urgent necessity which exists for subsidising a British mail service on the East African coast to serve Port Sudan, Berbera, Kismayu, Lamu Malindi, Mombasa, Zanzibar, Chinde, Beira, and Lorenzo Marquez, all of which are either British ports or serve the trade of British Colonies.
  COLONEL SEELY: His Majesty's Government are anxious to secure, if possible, an improved service in British Steamships between this country and

  743
  East Africa, and negotiations are in progress on the subject. I regret that I am not at present in a position to say more.

  Orange River Colony Land Bill.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill, passed by the Orange River Colony Legislature, dealing with the employment of natives, their occupation of land and half-profit farming, was considered by this Government, and has received the assent of the Crown.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have seen the terms of the Bill which has been passed and reserved by the Governor for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, but it has not yet been formally submitted.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have the Government taken into consideration the fact that this Bill will practically compel the natives either to become servants in the Colony, or to retire with their cattle to the already overcrowded reservation? Will that not impede the progress of civilisation?
  COLONEL SEELY: Different views are entertained with regard to the effect of this Bill, but I think it would not be wise for me to make a statement on behalf of the Government until the Bill has been submitted here.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received complaints in regard to the character of the diet given to British-Indians imprisoned in the Transvaal for refusing to comply with the registration law; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, the Secretary of State has received complaints and he is now in communication with the Transvaal Government on the subject.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: How many men are affected by this?
  COLONEL SEELY: I should like notice of that Question.

  Orange River Colony Loan.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Orange River Colony intends to float a new loan of £1,500,000, which will include the establishment of a fund for Dutch people in necessitous circumstances, to the amount of £750,000, together with a Government land settlement scheme representing £65,000, and a Church Industrial Colony for poor whites representing £27,500; and whether it is the intention of this Government to guarantee the loan.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Orange River Colony Legislature passed a Bill last session to authorise a loan for £1,500,000, for various purposes, some of which are referred to in this Question. It was proposed to allocate £750,000 of this sum to the establishment of a fund for assistance by way of loans to those in necessitous circumstances, and for the promotion and assistance of farming and industrial undertakings in accordance with a resolution adopted by the House of Assembly. But there was no indication either in the Bill or in the debates on the Bill that the benefits of this loan should be confined to those of His Majesty's subjects who are of Dutch descent, and the Secretary of State regrets that the suggestion should have been made from here. There has been no official request from the Orange River Colony Government for an Imperial guarantee, and until such request is made I am not in a position to make any statement.
  In reply to a remark by Sir GILBERT PARKER, the purport of which did not reach the Gallery—
  COLONEL SEELYsaid: I at once accept the hon. Member's disclaimer. It is undesirable to inflame racial feeling in South Africa.

  Animal Traps in Lagos.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the duty of 1s. each recently imposed on animal traps imported into Lagos; whether he is aware that this duty was imposed without the slightest notice being

  745
  given, and that large quantities of traps manufactured in Lancashire were actually on the sea at the time such tax was imposed; and whether he will take steps to secure the reduction of this duty, which is about 200 per cent. of the value of the articles, at all events in respect of those consignments which were dispatched, from England before the notification of the duty was promulgated.
  COLONEL SEELY: The duty of 1s. each on iron-toothed spring traps imported into Southern Nigeria was imposed not to raise revenue, but to check the importation of the traps, owing to the cruelty attending their use to which the attention of the Governor had been called. It is reported for instance, that round Ibadan probably from 40 to 50 per cent. of the bush-fowl shot have only one leg, the other having been torn off in a trap. I do not know what quantities of traps were actually on the sea at the time when the duty was imposed. It was imposed without notice in accordance with the usual practice, and I am afraid that it would now be impracticable to allow any traps to come in at a reduced rate of duty.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: If representations are received from the British Consul on the subject will they be considered?
  COLONEL SEELY: I must remind the hon. Member that 40 to 50 per cent. of the bush-fowl shot are found to have only one leg, and that is a serious matter.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are the traps not largely used for rats?
  MR. MARKHAMwas understood to ask if like restrictions could not be placed on imports of gin.
  COLONEL SEELY: That shall be considered.

  South African Constabulary.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Transvaal Government Gazette of 17th July, 1908, contained the dismissal of
  746
  no less than fourteen English officers of the South African Constabulary, many of whom had served their country with distinction during the war, upon the ground of reduction of establishment; whether several of those posts, in spite of the contemplated reduction, were immediately filled by Boers; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, I have seen the Gazette notice referred to, which was concerned with a reduction of establishment considered to be necessary by those responsible. The Question, if I may be allowed to say so, conveys a somewhat unmerited reflection on the Transvaal Government, who are alone competent, subject to the control of their Parliament, to judge of the necessity of such reductions, and who have not, I think, exhibited the animus against English officers which the Question seems to imply. The Gazette of 29th July, contains a long list of appointments under the recent Police Act, and I observe that more than three-quarters of the names, including the Commissioner, are of officers of British extraction. The hon. Member will probably admit that it is not unreasonable in reorganising a police force, which will be brought into contact with Dutch-speaking people, to appoint some officers of Dutch extraction.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the hon. Member could give the House the information which he evidently possessed.
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not know what the hon. Member refers to.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid it was with reference to the Transvaal Civil Service.
  COLONEL SEELY: As I stated the other day, I hope to lay a full Return in the course of a few days, about the 22nd. With regard to the information in the answer, if hon. Members will come to the Colonial Office, I shall be able to convince them of the truth of the statement therein made that the vast majority of the men now in the constabulary are Englishmen.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: But have any posts that have been closed by retrenchment since been filled up by the appointment of Boers?
  COLONEL SEELYsaid that the Government proposed to take no steps, and as to the retrenched officers he would be glad to give any information to the hon. Member. He was bound to point out to the hon. Member that the Chief Commissioner of Police was an Englishman who had fought throughout the war, and he had succeeded a Dutchman.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I can give the hon. Gentleman information—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any further Questions.

  Opium Consumption in Hong-Kong.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that the Chinese inhabitants of Hong-Kong are afraid to form anti-opium societies because of the belief that the British authorities are opposed to such action; whether he is aware that the encouragement of such societies is one of the Chinese Government's methods of reform among their own people; and whether the Secretary of State will give instructions to the Government of Hong-Kong to encourage and aid such societies by every means in their power.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative. The attitude of His Majesty's Government on the opium question is well known in Hong-Kong, and the Secretary of State therefore sees no reason to issue instructions to the Colonial Government, but a copy of the Question and of my reply shall be sent to the Governor.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made as to whether there is any truth in the allegation?
  COLONEL SEELY: Certainly, we will inquire.

  Hong-Kong Opium Dens.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the Secretary of State for the Colonies' telegraphic instructions, dated 5th May last, to the Governor of Hong-Kong to close the opium dens there have been carried into effect.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Governor's proposals are under the consideration of the Secretary of State who hopes shortly to be in a position to give his decision upon them.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: Am I to take it that, although five months have already elapsed, nothing has been done in Hong-Kong?
  COLONEL SEELY: On the contrary a great deal has been considered, and a great deal done.

  The Case of Mr. Luxenburg.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position-to state the result of his appeal to the Russian Government for compensation to Mr. N. Luxenburg for wrongful arrest and imprisonment; and if he will take the opportunity of the presence in this country of the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs to lay before him a report of the whole case with a view to favourable consideration by His Excellency.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,): It was not possible to discuss this matter with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs during his visit to this country; but a Note, laying the circumstances before the Russian Government, was sent last month, to which a reply has not yet been received.

  Old-Age Pension Officers.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the appointments will be made by the Treasury of pension officers under Section 8, subsection 4, of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908; and whether, in view of the shortness of

  749
  the time left for the necessary preliminary work by local authorities in connection with this Act, he will take steps to have these appointments made with the least possible delay.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The appointments in question were made on the 2nd instant.

  Bow Trams.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has decided to issue a new licence to the London County Council to run trams on the stud system from Aldgate to Bow, as the present provisional licence was only granted for six months; and whether he is aware that the London County Council have had an expert's opinion upon the present studs, which states that even had the line been laid exactly similar to the one at Lincoln the difficulties and dangers that have occurred would have been much the same.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No application has been received from the County Council for a renewal of the sanction provisionally given to the working of the stud system for six months. I have no information as to the matter referred to in the last part of the Question.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: Am I to understand that the Board of Trade will not give a full certificate until they are satisfied that the electric system which the London County Council intend to use is quite safe?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think I can say that—with all necessary reserve.

  Copyright.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the proposed alterations to the Berne Convention regarding copyright have not been issued in this country by his Department; why, when information on the subject was given, it
  750
  was in the form of a document printed in French and was accompanied by a request that it should be treated as confidential; whether he is aware that this document was issued as a public document by certain foreign. Governments; and whether any alterations made by the Conference sitting in Berlin will be submitted to this House before being accepted by the Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The proposed amendments to the Berne Convention were communicated to a number of societies and persons interested in the questions to be discussed, and their criticisms were invited and obtained. The proposals were naturally communicated in the form in which they were received from the International Union, but if the hon. Member so desires I will cause a translation to be issued. I was not aware that any foreign Government had actually published the document, and I do not think that such a step is in accordance with the practice generally pursued in the case of the previous Conferences. Any alterations of the existing law in this country to give effect to amendments of the Convention must of necessity be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Bill.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade declined to give to persons whose interests would be seriously affected any copy of the document giving the alterations proposed to be made in the articles of the Berne Convention at the Inter-national Copyright Convention at Berlin; whether, after repeated applications, the Board of Trade gave to a limited number of persons a copy of the alterations on the understanding that it should be treated as private and confidential; whether he can state the reason why these English applicants have been given a document drawn up in French; whether the Berne officials on inquiry informed the Board of Trade that they had no objection to the Board of Trade issuing an English translation of the alterations proposed; and, as the Congress is now sitting, will he state where copies of this English translation can be obtained.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Part of this Question is covered by the Answer I have just given to my hon. friend the Member for Leicester. I am not aware that a copy of the proposals has been refused to any person or body directly affected, but if my hon. friend will give me particulars of any case which he has in mind I will give the matter my consideration. The statement as to the International Bureau is not correct. The Bureau informed the Board of Trade that it was not within their competence to prescribe the limits within which the proposals should be made public, but that so far as they were aware on the occasion of the previous Conference the amendments, though known to the parties interested, were not made public in the Press before the Conference assembled.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the British delegates to the International Copyright Convention at Berlin will be given the power to decide whether the editions of foreign works lawfully produced shall be destroyed; whether they will be given the power to decide that the period of copyright in Great Britain shall be extended; and whether, if any alteration of the copyright law be agreed upon, any opportunity will be given for discussion before an Order in Council is made.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The British delegates at the International Copyright Conference at Berlin have no power to bind His Majesty's Government to any amendment of the law of copyright, and it has been explained to the other delegates that any provisional assent which they may give to any proposed amendment or revision of the International Copyright Convention must not be held to imply that Great Britain will be able eventually to adhere and give effect to such alteration. The last part of the Question is covered by my previous Answer to my hon. friend the Member for Leicester.
  *MR. BYLES: May we then understand that the British law as to copyright cannot be altered without the consent of the House of Commons.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

  The Wreck of the "Argonaut."
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any Board of Trade regulation requiring passenger vessels to be provided with lifeboat accommodation for as many passengers as they are capable of carrying; and whether he is aware that the "Argonaut," which was capable of carrying 200 passengers, had on board only 108 passengers when she sank the other day, yet that all the boats were full, so that if she had had her full complement of passengers on board a large number of people would have been unprovided for; and will he say who is responsible for this state of affairs.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is no regulation requiring lifeboat accommodation to be provided for every person on board every passenger vessel, and I am advised that it would not be practicable in the case of very large vessels to carry the number of boats that such a regulation would require. The "Argonaut," however, which was certified to carry 338 persons in all, had at the survey held immediately before the last voyage boat accommodation for 378. The statement that all the boats were full, though there were only 108 passengers on board, will be investigated at the public inquiry which is to be held in the case.

  Tuberculosis.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will be prepared to announce at an early date whether or not the Government is prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee on Tuberculosis as to compensation for carcases condemned as tuberculous.
  MR. COURTHOPE: May I also ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the demand of the Butchers' Federation from every vendor of cattle for a warranty of immunity from a disease which cannot be accurately diagnosed prior to slaughter, and to the general feeling expressed by the agricultural community that any loss incurred by them in consequence thereof should be borne either in whole by the Exchequer or, as recommended

  753
  by the Select Committee on Tuberculosis of 1904, as to one-half, he will say definitely whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to entertain such a proposal, in order that the farmers may be in a position to know how to deal with this novel demand on the part of the butchers.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: May I also ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the decision of the National Federation of Meat Sellers not to buy cattle without guarantee from the farmers, and to the hardship which would be inflicted upon farmers by giving such guarantee; and if he will provide that part of the compensation for an animal condemned by the inspectors after slaughter as tuberculous shall be paid out of public funds.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion made in these Questions, and I am not in a position to promise that such legislation will be proposed by the Government.

  Cirencester Vaccination Case.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if a medical officer, on behalf of the Local Government Board, has inquired into the cases of children vaccinated by Dr. Cossham, of Dyer Street, Cirencester, and if he ascertained that the result of the vaccination in the case of three or more children has been to cause terrible sores, eating the flesh to the bone; and if, in consequence of these and other similar cases, the quality of the lymph supplied by the Local Government Board has been changed.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Three instances at Cirencester which called for inquiry were investigated by one of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board. In two of them the vaccination places were long in healing, but the symptoms were not of a serious character. A large number of children were vaccinated from the lymphs used in these cases respectively without any such symptoms,
  754
  and the evidence indicates that in these two cases secondary contamination of the vaccination places occurred. In the third case there was deep ulceration at the site of vaccination. This, however, did not begin to show itself till subsequently to the ninth day after vaccination, and no adverse report has reached the Local Government Board in respect of any of the thousand or more children vaccinated from the same lymph as that used in this instance, although reports are required in each case. The home of the child was insanitary and overcrowded, and it appears to be clear that the vaccination places were secondarily infected by septic material. I am not aware of any need for changing the quality of the lymph issued by the Board.
  MR. LUPTON: Has not the quality of the lymph been recently altered, and will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that vaccination shall not be performed in unhealthy places?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: In no one department has absolute perfection yet been reached, and we try to improve on the best every day?
  MR. CROYDON MARKS: Is the Department satisfied that in this case the unsatisfactory symptoms developed through the insanitary condition of the place?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, our officers reported that the development was due to uncleanliness.

  Mile End Guardians Scandal.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give the House the results of the trials of the Mile End Guardians, and the total results of the inquiries he instituted; and whether, in view of the scandals existing under the present system which he has brought to light, the Government will consider the propriety of restoring the ex-officio guardians.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I directed an inquiry by Mr. Willis, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, as to the proceedings of the Mile End Guardians. On receiving his Report I forwarded the

  755
  papers to the Public Prosecutor, who took proceedings against two contractors and ten guardians and ex-guardians. One of the contractors was acquitted, and one of the guardians absconded. The rest were convicted; one was fined, and the others were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The expenditure of the Mile End Guardians has shown a substantial reduction since the proceedings in connection with the inquiry were commenced, but it is not possible at present to estimate the total results of this and the other inquiries which I have instituted. The question of the constitution of boards of guardians will be a matter for consideration when the Report of the Poor Law Commission has been received.
  MR. PIKE PEASEasked when the Report of the Poor Law Commission would be received.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he expected it in November or December. The Commission were very anxious to present it at the earliest possible date.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain from various boards of guardians throughout the country whether any similar scandals are obtaining as in the case of Mile End and Poplar, and, if so, what are the results of his inquiry?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I can assure the House that the Local Government Board is keeping its eye on every body throughout the country.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Except the unemployed.

  The National Telephone Company.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, owing to the Government shortly completing the purchase of the National Telephone Company's undertaking, hundreds of men have been discharged; and whether he is prepared to take some action in the matter, in view of the fact that 6,000 further discharges are threatened.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the paper:—
  MR. WATT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he I is aware that about 6,000 men (many I of whom are resident in Glasgow) of the National Telephone Company are being dismissed by that Company on account of the fact that satisfactory arrangements cannot be made between his Department and the Company as to the taking over of plant in January, 1912; that unemployment in Glasgow is widespread, and that the addition of these skilled workmen to the number I is a serious matter; and whether, in view of the fact that these workmen I will be wanted by his Department at a time when they have become scattered over the country, he will make an arrangement with the Telephone Company to prevent their dismissal.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the National Telephone Company have suspended all new constructional work owing to the approaching acquisition of the telephone service by the Government, and that in consequence there have been, and will be, extensive dismissals of telephone employees, amounting before 1911 to about 6,000, according to the figures of the President of the Company; and whether some means could be devised by which the capital expenditure of the Company could be controlled by the Government during the few remaining years of the Company's existence, and the value refunded on the acquisition of the system by the Government, so as to obviate this increase to the general want of employment in the country.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether in the negotiations that are proceeding between him and the National Telephone Company, he will secure that practically no man who is on the construction staff I of the Company will be put out of employment in consequence of the pending transfer of the Company's plant to the Post Office; and whether he will also secure that no interruption shall

  757
  take place in telephone construction work and that it shall be carried on so as to provide as much employment as possible.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that the Post Office will take over the property of the National Telephone Company on 31st December, 1911, and that this circumstance is leading to the discharge of members of the staff of the Telephone Company's construction department, he will himself take in hand the new construction work that is required or authorise the Telephone Company so to do, so that these men may not join the ranks of the unemployed.
  MR. H. C. LEA: To ask the Postmaster-General with reference to the transfer to his Department in 1911 of the business of the National Telephone Company, Limited, whether he is aware that the latter at the present time, by curtailing their staff and refusing extensions in every direction which are urgently demanded by the public, are seriously adding to the ranks of the unemployed; whether he can state how many of the present staff, 6,000, will be retained and how many dismissed between now and when the transfer matures; and, in the latter case, whether they will receive compensation or not.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Perhaps I may be allowed at the same time to answer all the Questions on this subject. It is not a fact that the National Telephone Company have suspended their construction work; but they have stated that it is not to their interest to undertake the construction of new plant which would not be likely to be brought into use before the end of their licence; and I have been informed by them that in consequence they will find it necessary to make some reductions in their construction staff. The question of providing for the proper development of the telephone system, and the continuation of the work of construction, has received careful consideration. Under an arrangement come to in the purchase agreement of 1905, considerable systems of underground wires have been, and are being,
  758
  constructed by the Post Office and leased I to the Company on rental terms until 1911, so as to facilitate the due extension of the telephone system, while at the same time making provision by new construction to meet the public requirements after 1911. This policy is being pursued as actively as possible, and will to some extent meet the difficulty. I am at present discussing with the Company what further arrangements can be made, so that the necessary work of construction may be continued uninterruptedly. I may add that a special arrangement for the proper development of the telephone system in the Glasgow area by the Company and the Post Office in co-operation has been nearly completed. I understand from the Company that the discharges which have so far taken place, apart from those due to misconduct or incompetence, or to the termination of temporary employment or employment for certain special purposes, have been mainly caused by an exceptional falling off in orders obtained from the public consequent on the recent depression of business throughout the United Kingdom. Arrangements are being made to give employment in the Post Office Service to competent workmen discharged from the Company's service when they can be usefully employed. The whole question, which is a difficult one, is receiving the most careful consideration.
  MR. B. S. STRAUSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would see that the National Telephone Company did not scamp the necessary expenditure on capital account simply because of their agreement with the Government.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreplied that under the terms according to which the system would be taken over all these circumstances would be taken into account, and if the Company scamped the work they would receive less money.
  MR. H. C. LEAasked whether applications made to the Company for an extension of telephonic communication were being refused daily because the system was going to be taken over by the Post Office in 1911, and whether the right hon.

  759
  Gentleman would discourage the policy of discharging men to add to the ranks of the unemployed.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that this point, as well as others, was covered. The Company so far had not found it necessary to discharge any of their constructive hands because of their refusal of orders; if men had been discharged it was through want of orders.
  MR. CURRANasked how many servants of the Company had been discharged up to date, and how many of those who had been discharged had been employed by the Post Office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he was in communication with the Company, but as yet he had not been furnished with full information.
  MR. CURRANasked whether it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to enter into some arrangement with the Company to prevent further discharges owing to the state of the labour market.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am in communication with the Company, and I am very anxious to do what I can to prevent discharges.
  MR. WATTasked whether it was not the case that the system was at present being starved on account of the arrangements made with the right hon. Gentleman and the Company.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether it was not a fact that under the agreement of purchase there was a special provision made for the Post Office to take over the staff of the Company, and whether that clause had now come into operation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Until the agreement comes into force the clause does not operate
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether it was not the case that the Company were pursuing a deliberate policy of starving the system till 1911.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That Question should be addressed to the Company and not to me.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's concern whether the service is left in a state of efficiency or not?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that any evidence brought before him to show that the service was not to be left in a state of efficiency would be considered.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Any further Question must be put down.

  Aberdeen Mail Service
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the dislocation of postal business which has been created by the recent action of the Caledonian and North British Railway Companies in changing the hours of departure of the evening mail trains from Aberdeen to the South; and what course he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to this matter. The hours of these trains are not in any way under my control, but I have pointed out to the railway companies the great inconvenience to the public in the North of Scotland which has been caused by the alteration of the trains and the consequent alteration in the postal service; and I have asked them to consider whether they cannot revert to the former times of service.

  North of Scotland Mail Service.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the contract for carrying the 8 p.m. night mail from London to Edinburgh and the North of Scotland is with the London and North-Western and Caledonian Railways only, or whether any portion of the contract is with the North British Railway; and, if so can he state to what part of that Company's system the contrat applies.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The great bulk of the mails for Scotland are conveyed by the special postal mail train

  761
  which leaves London (Euston Station) at 8.30 p.m. and reaches Aberdeen at 7.35 a.m. This train is run under contracts with the London and North-Western and Caledonian Railway Companies. Some of the mails for Edinburgh and the North of Scotland are conveyed by the 8.25 p.m. train from King's Cross by the East Coast route, under the general contracts with the Great Northern, North-Eastern and North British Companies, but the hours of the train are fixed by the Companies concerned to suit their own traffic.
  MR. DALZIEL: Do the North British Railway Company receive payment for carrying the mails from Edinburgh to Aberdeen?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There is no specific subsidy for that, but there are fixed rates of payment; these give us no control over the trains.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the train which carries the mails from Edinburgh to Aberdeen does not stop at many important centres, the letters for which are in consequence delayed at Edinburgh six hours. Cannot an arrangement be made for it to stop and leave the mails?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not know to which train the hon. Member refers, but I shall be pleased to consider any representations he may send to me.

  Central London Postmen's Duties.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether orders have been passed which involve an attendance from 4 a.m. for the Central London postmen; and whether, seeing that the object of this change could have been equally attained by placing a comparatively small increase of the staff on midnight duty, 12 to 7 a.m., and the inconvenience caused to the general body of City postmen thus avoided, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In consequence of the great increase in the work, and the consequent delay in delivery it has become necessary in the interests of the public in the Eastern Central district
  762
  to arrange for a certain number of men to attend at 4.0 a.m. I regret that this is necessary, but I may mention that the new arrangement affects 238 only out of the 1,356 postmen in the district, and that, as a set off, the duties generally have been greatly improved by reductions in the number of separate attendances. The object of the change could not be secured by increasing the staff on duty from midnight to 7.0 a.m. as the work for which the men are required consists largely of preparing correspondence for delivery, and must necessarily be done by the men who are to perform the delivery. Men attending from midnight to 7.0 a.m. would be off duty before the delivery commenced and much of the correspondence concerned is not received until about 4.0 a.m. If this alteration is found to operate harshly in any individual case the matter will be favourably considered with a view to affording relief.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: Does the change apply to any other postal districts in London?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, it specially affects E.C. A large number of people desire to have their letters earlier, and there seems no possible alternative to bringing on a certain staff of men earlier.

  Irish Linen Industry.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has yet been able to appoint linen inspectors for the purpose of protecting the Irish linen industry from fraud in the United Kingdom.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The negotiations with the Linen Merchants' Association are not complete, but the matter is receiving attention.
  MR. LONSDALE: What is the nature of the proposals?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I cannot say now.

  The Government and Unemployment.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the amount of suffering caused by the present state of unemployment, he can now state what the Government proposes to do to alleviate the distress, and when a day can be given to discuss the subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I propose to make a full and detailed statement on this subject on Wednesday, and as I am afraid it will be necessary for me to go beyond the ordinary limit of an Answer to a Question, I shall ask the permission of the House to make the statement at the end of Questions.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: In view of the guillotine Motion being in operation, may I ask whether, in the event of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer not being satisfactory to my colleagues, the Government will be disposed to give us a day to consider the whole subject.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am sanguine enough to hope that my Answer will be satisfactory. In the event of its not being so, having regard to the importance of the subject, the hon. Gentleman may be sure an opportunity will be given to consider it.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can say when the Report stage of the Scottish Education Bill will be taken.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot make any announcement as to the date at present; but I hope to be able to do so next month.

  Military Charges on India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give this House any opportunity of discussing the serious steps taken by the Government of India to charge the Indian taxpayers with an additional annual burden of £300,000 in accordance with the recent recommendation of the Committee on Army Charges.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. I am afraid that no opportunity for such a discussion can be provided this session.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Is it not a matter of great interest to the Empire that this extra burden should be placed on India? Ought this House not to have an opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. ASQUITH: There will be an opportunity next session.

  Irish Land Finance.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to make his promised statement on Irish land finance.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am unable to fix a date at present. Communications are daily passing between the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope a definite statement may be possible before the end of next week.

  The Government and Home Rule.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement of the President of the Board of Trade at Dundee on 9th October on the subject of Home Rule was made with the sanction of the Cabinet; and, if so, will a Bill be introduced dealing with the matter before the present Government go to the country.
  MR. ASQUITH: The statement of my right hon. friend was made on his own responsibility. The policy of the Government has been clearly explained in the declarations made by me in the earlier part of the session, to which I have nothing to add.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to come to some agreement on this important subject, in view of the unrest and unsettlement which these electioneering speeches from Members of the Government cause among the law abiding and respectable people in Ireland?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of any difference of opinion amongst Members of the Government on this subject, and I am

  765
  afraid that nothing I can say will allay these feelings of apprehension and unrest.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: If there is no difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade, does the right hon. Gentleman endorse what the President of the Board of Trade has said?
  MR. ASQUITH: There is no difference of opinion.
  MR. R. DUNCANAre we to take it that when a Minister makes a rash statement, silence gives consent?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he wished to ask the Prime Minister two questions having reference to the arrangement of business under the Closure Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman intended on Wednesday to make a statement of some length on the serious question of unemployment, and, as he understood, he had promised, if that statement was not satisfactory, to give an opportunity for its discussion. A lengthy statement, made in time taken out of their rather slender resources on the Licensing Bill, was of itself a rather serious interference with the rules which the right hon. Gentleman had himself laid down. He thought it might be taken as a matter of absolute certainty that the right hon. Gentleman's statement, whether satisfactory or not, would require commentary and discussion. The second question had reference to the Amendment put down on Friday in the name of the First Commissioner of Works in connection with off-licences, about which not a single word either had been or could be said. The first opportunity of discussing it must be on the Report stage, and he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think this fact necessitated some reconstruction of the compartment resolution when they reached the Report stage. The interests involved were very large.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he hoped his statement would not be at all a long one. It would be longer than an answer to a Question, and that was why he said what he did. But it would be as short as he could make it, and he did not think it would substantially encroach on the time allotted to the Licensing Bill. He thought it was almost impossible that any statement on this particular matter could be made without giving rise to a legitimate demand for discussion in some quarter, and he would see how that demand could best be met. With regard to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, he would point out that the Amendment was carried without a division, without even a challenge. That, according to ordinary experience and use, would seem to show that it had the unanimous support of the House. He had never known a proposition to which exception was taken carried without a division, or even without a challenge. But he agreed that it was a matter of importance, and he would consider, between now and the Report stage whether it would not be possible, by remoulding, if necessary, the compartment procedure, to afford the House some opportunity of discussing it if there was a general disposition to do so.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Byles; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Acland Allen.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Samuel Roberts; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Du Cros.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Tuberculosis (Ireland)

  767
  Prevention Bill): Earl of Ronaldshay and Mr. Thomas Lorimer Corbett; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Charles Craig and Lord Balcarres.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

CHILDREN BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.) moved the addition of the words in Clause 42 for the protection of children who might be sent by their parents or employers to fetch cigarettes from automatic machines. He said the words regarding the machines being "extensively used by children" were likely to give rise to a good deal of misunderstanding, as it was quite possible children might merely use them for others who were fully entitled to the use of them and not for themselves. In such a case no penalty ought to attach to the user. He, therefore, begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 4, after the word 'persons,' to insert the words 'for the purpose of obtaining cigarettes for his own use or that of other children or young persons.'"—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)thought the matter was sufficiently covered by the clause, and the insertion of these words would unnecessarily complicate the working of the Bill. As a matter of fact these machines were not extensively used by children for the purpose of obtaining cigarettes for adults. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 9, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'Provided that any person aggrieved by such an order may appeal against it to a Court of Quarter Sessions.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this appeal would probably be very seldom used, and for that reason it was not inserted in the Bill. But it was as well to allow the appeal, and he would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
MR. RAWLLNSONasked whether the hon. Gentleman would extend the appeal to Section 39 (Penalty on selling tobacco to children and young persons).
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would consider that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 24, line 16, to leave out the words 'or purchase.'"
"In page 24, line 19, to leave out the words 'by whom they are bought.'"
"In page 24, line 21, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'or was a uniformed boy messenger in the employment of a messenger company and employed as such at the time.'"
Amendments agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSONpointed out that the clause made it an offence to sell cigarettes to certain people, and the Government had made an exception in the case of uniformed messenger boys employed by a messenger company. But he thought the exemption was too narrow. A page at a club or a clerk in an office might be employed in the same way, and surely in their case it ought not to be treated as an offence. Any boy bona fide employed as a messenger, ought to be exempted, especially as, after all, the seller would supply them at his own risk. This clause as it stood would give endless opportunities for traps to be laid for unwary shopkeepers by people who might desire to get them into trouble. He hoped, therefore, the House would accept his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 21, after the word 'business to insert the words 'or was bona fide employed as a messenger at the time.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would open too wide a door to the evasion of the Act. If words were put in that this clause was not to apply in any case where a boy was bona fide employed as a messenger at the time every person who wished to buy cigarettes would represent that he was bona fide employed as a messenger. He might make special arrangements for messenger boys in uniform, because that was a special case and they would be known. But, looking at this from the point of view of the tobacconist, if the tobacconist knew he was not allowed to sell cigarettes to any body under the age of sixteen, the matter was comparatively simple. If he saw a boy apparently under the age of sixteen he knew he must not serve him, but if a boy in uniform came to him he could distinguish him at once and knew that he would be able to serve him. But the insertion of these words giving so wide and undefined an exemption would impose a very great burden on the tobacconist.
SIR F. BANBURYregretted that the hon. Gentleman persisted in his opposition to the Amendment. It appeared to him that if the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman were carried it would create a monopoly in favour of the boy messenger companies. He saw no reason why a particular advantage should be given to the boy messenger companies, or why people should be put to the trouble of sending out for a messenger boy in order to send for cigarettes when they had a page-boy in their own employment whom they kept for the purpose of running errands, and who would be in livery if not in uniform. Would it not be absurd to say that if a member of the National Liberal Club wanted a cigarette, and there was not one in the club, he must not send out one of the club pages, but must send out for a boy-messenger to buy him some cigarettes? In considering an Act of Parliament it should not be considered from the point of view that some people might desire to evade it, but from the point of view of common sense. Did the hon. Gentleman intend to move the Amendment following the one now before the House?
770
Because if he did it looked as if he was going to recede from the position which he had previously taken up, and was no longer going to allow anybody employed as a servant or a messenger to buy cigarettes.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the remaining words of the clause were purely consequential to Clause 41. If Clause 41 were dropped these words were entirely unnecessary.
SIR F. BANBURYasked whether, if the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend were not accepted, he would be allowed to send a servant of his under sixteen years of age to fetch him a cigarette.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
SIR F. BANBURYcontended that he would be able to do so if these words were not struck out. These were strong arguments in favour of the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, and he hoped that he would press it to a division.
LORD R. CECILthought this Amendment rather demonstrated the difficulties in which the House was placed in respect to these clauses, which tried to make a thing criminal which was not criminal. It was true that the addition of these words would make a slight addition to the risk of evasion. He did not think it would be so great as the hon. Gentleman supposed, because the boy must be a bona fide messenger, but it would somewhat add to the burden of the tobacconist. That was true, but the tobacconist was not bound to sell unless he liked, and if he had any doubt in the matter he was quite within his right to refuse to sell. If, however, something of this kind was not put into the Bill a very genuine hardship would be involved to those who could not command, by reason of their income, the services of a boy messenger, and who were not allowed to send their little boy or little girl out for a packet of cigarettes. He thought this was a serious matter, and that the Government would have done well to have accepted the Amendment. It would I not have made any difference to this

771
Bill, and would have removed a great hardship.
CAPTAIN CRAIGexpressed the opinion that this Amendment might have been accepted if only for the reason that there were very few towns in which the boy messengers were in uniform. It would not inflict any hardship perhaps in London or other large towns in England, where the boy messengers could be found by the telephone; but there were many small towns where the little boys were just as well known to the traders as the boy messengers were here. If these words were not inserted a very great hardship would be inflicted. After all, the onus would still rest on the tobacconist. He would run the risk unless the boy was a bona fide messenger. He thought in cases of this sort, where an Amendment was intended to improve the Bill, and was not proposed in any captious spirit, it might be accepted. There were very few towns in Ireland in which there
were uniformed boy messengers. The boy messengers in those places were respectably dressed, but not in a uniform, and the penalty would fall upon them, or an extra expense would fall upon them, in having to dress in compliance with this Act. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
Question put.
The House divided:—
[While the division was being taken, one of the occupants of the first row in the Strangers' Gallery rose and said: "Gentlemen, I have a petition which I have presented to the Prime Minister. I should like you to read it." He then threw a paper on to the floor of the House. He was seized by an attendant, when he added: "I have said all I have got to say." He was then removed.]
Ayes, 65; Noes, 204. (Division List No. 264.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

Gordon, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond).

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Heaton, John Henniker

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Beville

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. K.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Whitbread, Howard

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

M'Arthur, Charles

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger,, George

Faber, George Dension (York)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Captain Craig.

Fletcher, J. S.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beale, W. P.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Bryce, J. Annan

Alden, Percy

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bennett, E. N.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)

Cameron, Robert

Barker, John

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Barnard, E. B.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Bowerman, C. W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Brace, William

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Jowett, F. W.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cornwall, Sir Edwin, A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rose, Charles Day

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rowlands, J.

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Crooks, William

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lambert, George

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Dalziel, James Henry

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Sears, J. E.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seely, Colonel

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lynch, H. B.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Maclean, Donald

Snowden, P.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

M'Callum, John M.

Soares, Ernest J.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

M'Crae, Sir George

Stanger, H. Y.

Erskine, David C.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Essex, R. W.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Steadman, W. C.

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sutherland, J. E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fenwick, Charles

Marnham, F. J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Findlay, Alexander

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thomasson, Franklin

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Menzies, Walter

Toulmin, George

Fullerton, Hugh

Molteno, Percy Alport

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ure, Alexander

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Verney, F. W.

Glover, Thomas

Morrell, Philip

Vivian, Henry

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Walsh, Stephen

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Walton, Joseph

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Gulland, John W.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wardle, George J.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Waring, Walter

Hall, Frederick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmann'n

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

O'Grady, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Paulton, James Mellor

Watt, Henry A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Weir, James Galloway

Hart-Davies, T.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Harwood, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Henry, Charles S.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rainy, A. Holland

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rees, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Holt, Richard Durning

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ridsdale, E. A.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 21, to leave out from the word 'business' to end of clause."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that Clause 44 had been very much criticised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite, on the
774
ground that it included "any small cigar," and not a large cigar, and this distinction had caused some ridicule. He might explain that the definition had been taken from the Oxford Dictionary, and it had the authority behind it of Dr. Murray. However that might be, perhaps for the purposes of legislation it could be somewhat improved. They could not leave

775
the definition to the Courts, and to avoid the probability of evasion of the Act, he moved to leave out the words "any small cigar made of," and to insert the word "cut." Then the clause would read "The expression 'cigarette' includes cut tobacco rolled up in paper, tobacco leaf, or any other material."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 28, to leave out the words 'any cigar made of,' and to insert the word 'cut.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the word 'cut' be there inserted."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid it was somewhat difficult at the moment to follow an alteration of this kind, and the hon. Gentleman would quite see that they needed a little further explanation of what the effect of it would be. The old definition "any small cigar" might mean tobacco rolled up in paper, or tobacco leaf or any material. Now they had "cut" tobacco rolled up in paper, or tobacco leaf, or any material. Would that include any form of cigar which contained cut tobacco?
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the second subsection of the clause dealt with tobacco other than cigarettes.
LORD R. CECILsaid that from the point of view of the Under-Secretary it would have been safer to omit any definition of cigarette, because the moment a definition was given they presented conundrums to the ingenuity of those who desired to evade the law, and who would devise something by which they could escape from the restrictions imposed. For that reason the Courts had always refused to give a definition of fraud, as it might exclude something at which the ingenuity of rascals might arrive. This definition might include any screw of tobacco rolled up in a paper, and bought not for cigarettes, but for the pipe, but he did not imagine that the Court would be such an idiot as to think, in spite of the
776
words of the Legislature, that it meant cigarettes.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not propose to submit the first two Amendments standing in his name, but he moved the third, to substitute the word "tobacco" for the word "cigarettes," in the last line of the clause. He did not know why the Bill proposed to apply to smoking mixtures, and he could not understand why a man should not send his child for a smoking mixture if he preferred it rather than tobacco. He supposed there were some people who smoked things which were not at all tobacco but some other mixture. He should like to know why that was to be included as well as tobacco; what was the explanation of this remarkable proposal? He begged to move.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 40, to leave out the word 'cigarettes' and insert the word 'tobacco.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'tobacco' stand put of the Bill."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the noble Lord would remember that the distinction between cigarettes and other tobaccos was this: that the tobacconist might not sell cigarettes at all to boys, while in regard to other tobacco he might sell it to boys if he had no reason to believe that it was for their own use. The provisions as to cigarettes were comparatively easily enforcible. The provision with regard to smoking mixtures had reference to substitutes for tobacco, not being tobacco, which were being now sold, more and more widely to boys, in halfpenny packets with a small wooden pipe. These mixtures contained more or less deleterious substances, and were very much cheaper than the cheapest cigarettes. It was that which they wished to aim at. The subject had been considered in Committee, and it was considered advisable to put these mixtures under the more complete ban imposed on the cigarette rather than in the more

777
easily obtainable category of other tobacco.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid smoking mixtures were very well-known, and were usually sold in tins. He did not wish to particularise any brand, but a very large number of brands were not intended to be pure tobacco, and what was added made the charm of them. Certain substitutes, which were probably a great secret, were used, and these smoking mixtures were largely sold in tins. He was sure that nine Members out of the ten would read the words of this subsection as applying to these smoking mixtures, and certainly such a construction might be put upon them. The Under-Secretary apparently had some smoking mixture in his mind, and he admitted at once that what the hon. Gentleman had stated was new to him.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would consider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed.
"In page 28, line 6, after the word 'supervision,' to insert the word 'recall.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid the utility of his Amendment spoke for itself. There was considerable danger in the clause as it stood that there might be established a scheme for the payment of superannuation allowances without intervention of any higher authority. It was quite likely that pressure would be brought to bear to secure these allowances and it was only fair that some higher authority should be introduced.
SIR F. BANBURYregarded this as a valuable Amendment. In many cases great pressure was brought to bear on people in public positions to increase salaries and grant superannuation allowances, and they were not always able to resist that pressure. The Amendment would be some safeguard, and he hoped it would be accepted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 22, after the word 'establishing,' to insert the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State.'"—(Mr. Staveley-Hill.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that this point was carefully considered before the clause was inserted, and it was decided that the Secretary of State could not and ought not to assume this responsibility. These persons who were receiving superannuation allowances were for the most part not in the public service at all but in the service of the managers of voluntary institutions, though occasionally they were in the service of local authorities, and there was no reason whatever why the Secretary of State should make himself responsible for the actuarial conditions in a private arrangement between the managers of an industrial school which belonged to a philanthropic society and the officers of the school. It was provided in the clause that the superannuation allowances should not be in excess of the amount payable under the Superannuation Metropolis Act, 1866, in order to save the managers and others from indirect pressure, and that Act provided that if the term of service was under eleven years the superannuation must not be more than ten-sixtieths, with an addition of one-sixtieth for every additional year of service, with a maximum of two-thirds of the salary. The Secretary of State could not undertake to make the elaborate actuarial calculations which would be necessary in every particular case of these officers of schools, and he was unable to accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he had put down an Amendment to omit subsection (1) of Clause 59, in order to elicit how far the present law differed from what was proposed in the subsection. It was a consolidating clause as well as one enacting something fresh. Was there any law which allowed any person to bring before a Petty Sessional Court a child which was found wandering or begging? And was it quite fair to inflict

779
such very harsh punishment as might be ordered by a Court of Petty Sessions for some of the trifling offences which were here enumerated? The clause said that any person might bring before the Court any person apparently under the age of fourteen who did so-and-so. That would be an opportunity for spite on the part of the smaller fry who were friends of the infant it was desired to have locked up. "Any person" was a very wide reading to give to such a Bill as this. Again, a young person might be brought before the Court if found begging or receiving alms. They were all thoughtless sometimes in throwing a copper to a boy, or perhaps on meeting with the son of some old servant one was apt to put one's hand in one's pocket. Was anybody to be allowed to take up that small boy to Petty Sessions for taking from somebody much his senior a small tip of 1d. or 2d? It seemed very harsh treatment, and very grandmotherly legislation, because if a person of mature years liked to act in this way the penalty ought to be on him rather than on the boy who took the coppers. If a small boy found another small boy wandering he might charge him and have him taken before the Petty Sessions. Surely, there was some loose drafting about a Bill which would allow that, and probably it would occur as much out of mischief as out of any benevolent feeling on the part of others. He did not observe that the Government had put down any Amendments to meet these obvious defects. A young person might be taken up if found wandering, and having a parent or guardian who was unfit to have the care of the child. It did not say anything about the other parent. The father might be abroad, and though the mother might have a home here, and be fit to have charge of the child, he might be brought before the Court and sent to an industrial school. Surely there was something very weak and wrong in a clause which would allow such interference as that. Then if the mother was undergoing a week's imprisonment the child was practically hidden away in a reformatory or industrial school for several years. Latterly a great number of suffragists had been imprisoned for a short time, and if
780
anyone found one of the children of one of these women wandering about it could be brought before the Court and ordered to be sent to an industrial school. There was something wrong there, too. Had anybody, like himself, ever tried to get a boy out of an industrial school after the mother had come back from prison? It was one of the most costly and difficult proceedings that he had ever had anything to do with in his short career. In Ireland it could only be done by an order of the Lord-Lieutenant, and in order to get it correspondence had to go through so many Departments that the boy was almost an old man before he got his release. The thing was a farce in many of its particulars. Subsections (a), (b), and (c), were all harsh. Surely it was not the intention of the Government to persist in them. A great many people were in favour of prohibiting cigarette-smoking amongst youths, but surely it was not intended to tack on to a Bill to prohibit juvenile smoking such extraordinary hardships as might befall innocent boys. If parents could not keep their boys in proper order and discipline the State would not do it, and for the State to attempt to do it in cases of this sort was to interfere with parental responsibility, and would do more harm than the good which could possibly be effected by a whole Act of Parliament. If they dropped the Bill at Clause 58 they would have done very well in legislation in this direction for this session. The clause gave far too much responsibility to "any person," whoever he happened to be, and he would be no party to allowing the clause to go through without a division.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that under this subsection any person who had a grudge against the parents of a child might bring them before the Court. Strife might arise between acquaintances, and any person who had a grudge against another might for spite declare they had found their child wandering, and swear that the parents were of drunken habits. That was a strong order. A man might swear that the child of John Jones was the child of a drunken person who was unfit to have the care of a child. It might be proved that John Jones was

781
occasionally the worse for drink, but the other part of the charge might fail. Would there be any penalty against the person who had brought an unfounded charge upon which John Jones had been haled before the magistrates? The mother of an illegitimate child might be sent to prison, and upon her return find that some person who had a grudge against her had been instrumental in having got her child sent to an industrial school. He did not wish to impute that the Government were not actuated by the best motives, but he thought this clause ought to have some modification, and he begged leave to second this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 27, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was surprised that the hon. Member, before moving this Amendment, had not taken the pains to see how much of the clause was new and how much was old. The words objected to by the mover of this Amendment had been the law of the land ever since 1866. The phrase "any person" appeared also in the Vagrancy Acts and the Larceny Act. It was extremely undesirable to limit to the police the possibility of rescuing these children. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children frequently used this clause, and under it about 200 children a year were rescued by them from evil surroundings, and received the almost immeasurable benefits of the industrial schools. The Salvation Army also put this clause into operation, and they did not find any of the impossible cases referred to by the Member opposite. He was astounded that such statements should be made in the House of Commons. The provision about receiving alms, wandering, and being found destitute had been the law of the land since the year 1866. It had been urged that these were harsh penalties for such trivial offences, but they were really not penalties at all. This was a clause to enable children in bad surroundings, perhaps with criminal
782
parents, to be rescued from those surroundings and placed in a position to obtain the start in life which the industrial school system gave. That system we as built mainly upon the subsections to which the hon. Member had referred. He had been asked what the new provisions were. Paragraphs (d), (e) and the latter part of (g) were new. There were a few other minor Amendments of a verbal character in other portions of the clause. This clause was discussed most fully and thoroughly for two whole days before the Standing Committee, and under these circumstances he thought the criticisms made by hon. Members opposite were quite uncalled for.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he hoped the whole of this clause would be retained. As the Under-Secretary had stated, it was most carefully considered by the Committee, and he never knew of a more searching examination of any clause. The existing law had been retained with Amendments of a desirable character, and he hoped no changes would now be made.
VISCOUNT MORPETHmade an appeal to the mover and seconder of this Amendment to allow the clause to go through as it stood. The hon. and gallant Member had given his experience of the difficulty of trying to get a boy out of an industrial school. He was inclined to think that if he had seen the inside of an industrial school he would not adhere to his opposition to this proposal. These schools gave boys a chance of starting fairly and squarely in life, and their great success was one of the most satisfactory and striking features in the whole field of education. No part of our educational system approached anywhere near the success of the industrial schools in reclaiming a class of children who were recruited largely from the lowest class of the population, and they turned out good citizens. The Under-Secretary had given reasons why the word "parson" should be retained. He did not think the cases cited were likely to arise. When a child was brought before the magistrate he had to decide whether it would be beneficial for the boy or girl

783
to be sent to an industrial school. Magistrates, as a rule, were reasonable men, who could be trusted not to act as faddists. He did not think a single case of drunkenness against a parent would be considered sufficient by the most foolish magistrate, but if the person charged was an habitual drunkard or criminal, the sooner his children were put into an industrial school, and given a chance of growing up away from scenes of brutality and crime, the better. He considered that this clause was one of the most important in the whole of the Bill, and when put into operation he believed it would do as much good as any other provision in the measure.
COLONEL LOCKWOODhoped his hon. friends would not divide the House against this clause. He did not think the mover and seconder of the Amendment could possibly have considered the advantages given under the Bill. Subsections (d), (e) and (g) contained most valuable provisions which would not inflict hardship of any sort when put into practice. His hon. and gallant friend had asked: Had any of them ever experienced the difficulty of getting a child out of an industrial school? He thought it was a good thing that it was difficult, for when a child was placed in an industrial school he was sure to undergo tuition and enjoy associations which would be to his advantage. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. They might call this grandmotherly legislation, but the fact remained that they had committed themselves to the principle of the Bill and undertaken a great deal of responsibility, whether rightly or not. Having done that, he thought they were bound to carry out the logical sequence of the Bill. He considered that these subsections were amongst the most valuable in the Bill.
MR. RAWLINSONobjected to the extreme severity of the language used by the Under-Secretary in opposing the Amendment. This was a very important clause. The power which was to be given by the clause to interfere between parent and child was one which was growing year by year, and such speeches as they had just heard from his hon.
784
friends ought to make the House doubly careful before committing themselves to legislation of this kind. They should be careful about taking away children from their parents. In this case the children were not vicious at all. Under this clause, for instance, a child might be taken away from a mother who was undergoing a short term of imprisonment. The child, being consequently destitute, could be sent to an industrial school instead of a workhouse, and that would mean taking the child entirely away from the mother. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] His hon. friend seemed to take the view that that was desirable. He admitted that it was a thing which had frequently been done, and perhaps that might be regarded as a justification for the bringing in of this clause. Before extending the power, the House ought to pause. It was a power which ought never to be used except in extreme instances. If a child of five or six years of age, being destitute because the mother was in prison for three weeks, was sent to an industrial school, the mother's punishment would be greatly added to. In cases where the mother was not absolutely vicious the child should not pass away from the control of the mother. He did not wish to oppose the clause, but he thought his hon. friend was thoroughly justified in calling attention to the matter.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid some hon. Members opposite were a little bit too afraid of interfering between parents and children. He did not think there was a Member of the House who did not feel that it was a serious thing indeed to take away a child from the mother, but there were cases in which it was a still more serious thing to leave the child with the parent. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University had addressed himself to subsection (c), which had been in operation for a number of years, and if there had been a case against the exercise of this power, surely the opponents of the clause would have been able to bring up some instances. They had not done so. The powers given by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (f) had been in existence for some time, and no real case of hardship or evil had arisen. He was sure

785
hon. Gentlemen opposite were animated by good motives and desired to prevent undesirable interference between parents and children. That view was fully discussed by the Committee, and he appealed to hon. Members not to press the Amendment.
MR. RUPERT GUINNESSsaid he should like to dissociate himself from those hon. friends on that side of the House who seemed to be in opposition to this clause. He had been on the education committee of the County Council since that body undertook the work, and at this moment he was the representative of that body on the management committee of an industrial school. In his opinion, the subsection they were now discussing ought to be retained in the clause. He believed that would greatly benefit the work of the industrial schools. He strongly disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in considering that any of these clauses would weaken parental control. Such parental control as would be exercised by parents in these cases must be distinctly bad. His hon. friends had apparently not given proper consideration to these subsections. He considered they were a most important part of the Bill.
MR. TOULMINcongratulated the hon. Member for Haggerston on the first appearance which he had made in debate in the House, and on the sentiments which he had expressed. He hoped that those sentiments would have large support in the division lobby. As chairman of a children's committee of a large union he had considerable experience in regard to such cases as would come within the scope of this clause. He would be sorry indeed if the provisions were weakened in the slightest. Not merely did they tend to the saving particularly of girls from a fate which none would wish to come upon them, but there were cases in which they were actually intended to save the parents. He had in his mind cases where children had been taken away from parents and restored to them after reformation which was brought about largely through the children having been taken away. He
786
hoped the House would adhere entirely to the clause.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Under-Secretary to consider whether, in the interest of justice and to secure the assimilation of decisions by the Petty Sessional Courts, he could introduce a definition of the words "drunken habits" which occurred in subsection (d). It was a very wide expression which should be defined.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it would be a pity to hamper the action of the Courts by any cut-and-dried definition. The words referred to were qualified by the words which followed, namely, "is unfit to have the care of the child."
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid it was admitted on all sides that this was a most important innovation in legislation, and he made no apology for moving the Amendment in order to give the House an opportunity of getting a clear explanation as to where the provisions of old Acts were being continued and where new powers were being conferred. In view of the appeal made to him by his hon. friends, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 29, line 30, to leave out the words 'or public,' and to insert the words 'premises or.'"
In page 29, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'is unfit to have the care of the child,' and to insert the words 'does not exercise proper guardianship.'"
"In page 31, line 8, after the word 'child, to insert the words 'and that the parent of guardian understands the results which will follow.'"
"In page 31, line 20, to leave out the words 'represent to,' and to insert the word 'satisfy.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel).
Amendments agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to leave out subsection (8). It seemed to him that the words after "unless" unduly fettered the discretion of the police. Why should the police authority not be entitled to take proceedings under the first subsection of this clause if somebody else was taking

787
Proceedings? There might be some good reason for the subsection which he did not at the present moment apprehend, and which the hon. Gentleman might be able to explain.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 32, line 6, to leave out subsection (8).—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the words of subsection (8), after line 9, down to line 15, stand part of the subsection."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that he was happy to give the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked for as to why this subsection which was new, was necessary. It had been found in not a few cases that the Industrial Schools Acts were really a dead letter, or almost a dead letter, and for this reason—that the words "any person may bring proceedings" made it everybody's business, and what was everybody's business became nobody's business in particular, and as no obligation rested on the police to take any actions in regard to the children it was found that in some cases owing to the indifference of the local authority no action was taken by anyone. They were all perfectly aware that in one town the Industrial Schools Acts were worked properly and efficiently in all cases where it was necessary to take action, while in a neighbouring town practically nothing was done under them at all. The question arose on whom the duty to put the Acts into operation should lie. Its would naturally devolve on the police in almost all cases under subsections (1) and (2), but cases under subsection (6), Education Act cases, came within the cognisance of the educational authorities, and it was necessary to safeguard the rights and powers of the education authority. There were also cases of action being taken by other persons not official—persons like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Salvation Army, and therefore it was felt after full consideration that the best course would be to impose the duty on the police authority, but still to leave
788
the local education authority their existing powers and also still to leave other persons their existing powers of action; and in order to do so it was necessary to adopt the form of words in the subsection.
MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved the next Amendment on behalf of Mr. Leif Jones, who was not present, "to leave out the words 'not required,' and to insert the word 'undesirable.'" This was an agreed Amendment to meet a point that arose during discussion in Grand Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 22, line 16, to leave out the words 'not required,' and to insert the word 'undesirable.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he wished to move on behalf of the hon. Member for Berwickshire an Amendment providing that where defective children are committed to special schools, instead of ordinary industrial schools, the action of the Court shall be taken "as a result of a medical examination and report." He was afraid that the number of children who were unable from some defect or other to receive proper training in industrial schools was very much on the increase; and he thought it was very important that the magistrates should have a definite, distinct, and clear medical opinion, as to the state of these children. It was not always the case that the children were palpably incapable of receiving the benefits of industrial training, and those of a milder kind should be decided upon by a doctor. As the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew, there was a good deal of anxiety and feeling with regard to medical inspection amongst the members of many societies and associations connected with the interests and welfare of children generally; and he hoped that the hon. Member would see his way to accept the Amendment.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 33, line 5, after the word 'satisfied,' to insert the words 'as a result of a medical examination and report."—(Lord Edmund Talbot.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that he quite approved the object of the noble Lord, but there were two objections to the Amendment he had just moved. This clause dealt with children who had committed some offence, and were properly sent to industrial or reformatory schools, but who suffered from some mental or physical defect. The noble Lord proposed that they should not be sent to an industrial or reformatory school unless after medical examination and report. But the physical defect might be obvious. Suppose a child was brought before a Court when it had only one leg or was absolutely blind. Why should they go to the expense of having a medical examination? The Government had just received a most voluminous and elaborate Report from the Royal Commission on the Feeble-Minded, and that Report proposed a large scheme of medical examination and certification for feebleminded persons of all ages and classes. It proposed that machinery should be set up in each local governing area with the necessary medical officers attached to it who should have a general supervision over all classes of mentally defective persons. He thought it would be a pity in a clause of this kind to put in a somewhat unsatisfactory form of words without providing any system to which the Courts might have recourse in order to secure the examination which was desired. It was better to wait, he thought, until the matter could be dealt with as a whole on the Report of the Feeble-Minded Commission rather than to put in a somewhat unsatisfactory form of words now which only covered a minute portion of the ground.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 33, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'school specified in the detention
790
order shall, where practicable be,' and to insert the words 'detention order (if any) shall be for detention in.'"
"In page 35, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'willing to receive him and.'"
"In page 39, line 7, after the first word 'school,' to insert the words 'in which the offence was committed.'"
"In page 39, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'wilfully neglects or refuses to conform to,' and to insert the words 'is guilty of a serious and wilful breach of.'"
"In page 39, line 13, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'or of inciting other inmates of the school to such a breach.'"
"In page 40, line 12, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'from which he escaped.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments agreed to.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that various Amendments followed on the Paper which imposed additional charges on the Consolidated Fund or on the rates, and could not be considered on Report.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 41, line 24, to leave out the words 'or that he habitually wandered from place to place.'"
"In page 41, line 39, at end, to insert the words '(c) Being a child who had no settled place of abode and who habitually wandered from place to place through the districts of various local education authorities; or.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments agreed to.
SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved, after the word 'borough,' in Clause 74, to insert the words 'and in the case of the City of London the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city in common council assembled.'" He had had some conversation with the Under-Secretary earlier in the day on this Amendment, but he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept it.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: In substance.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 42, line 36, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words 'and in the case of the City of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city, in common council assembled.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that this Amendment raised a question as to the position of the City within the County of London, as the authority with regard to reformatory schools. The matter was somewhat complicated, and he would therefore venture to explain it. The City now had power to provide reformatory school accommodation for children and paid for those children. But it did not pay with regard to children sent from other parts of London, and did not share the burden of those other parts in this respect. That was not because it had any privileges qua City. It was not one of the old rights of the Corporation, this exemption from the general charge, but all boroughs that had a population of over 10,000, and separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, had powers in regard to reformatory schools, and the City had these powers in consequence of that provision of the law. But under the Government Bill, which simplified the matter very greatly, they gave powers only to the councils of the county or county boroughs, and in consequence all these other boroughs (and the City with them) lost their powers. He had had an opportunity of receiving a deputation from the City that morning and of discussing the matter very fully with them. The City authorities said they did not object to share the burden of the whole of London in this respect, and they did not say that it was unreasonable that a charge such as that for reformatory school children should cover the whole of London, and that the City which was the richest part of London should not be exempted from paying its share. Of course, there were very few children sent from the City of London itself; at present there were only eleven, but if the City was brought into London they would have to bear a considerable portion of the cost which now rested upon the remainder of London alone. But while the City did not object to paving that, they said they took a very great interest in their reformatory school children, and they had a special committee which looked after them, visited them, and brought them under supervision. They said that they would be sorry to lose this power of supervision, and he had great sympathy
792
for their view and would be sorry to discourage any form of interest taken by a local authority in the children in its area. Therefore, he thought the view of the City ought to be met by on the one hand leaving the charge of the reformatory school children to be a county charge and not a special charge, and on the other hand making the City a special authority for its own children. It might be necessary to have some adjustment between the two authorities. He had been endeavouring to draft an Amendment that day in order to be able to move it so as to meet the point then, but difficulties had arisen and he found it was impossible. He would, however, give an undertaking to the hon. Baronet that in another place an Amendment would be moved by the Government which would meet his point and would constitute the City as a separate authority for reformatory schools, while at the same time it would leave the rate to be a county charge and not a charge on the special rate in London.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that under these circumstances he would not press-his Amendment. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that there were only eleven such children from the City in reformatory schools. His information was that there were 200 children from the City in eleven different schools. He thought that was where the mistake occurred.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he thought the hon. Baronet must be including industrial school children, but this only related to reformatory schools. He was informed by the City Remembrancer.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid his information came from the same Gentleman. He would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, would mean an additional charge upon the rates, and could not be dealt with on the Report stage.
*MR. REESsaid that the Amendment was intended to have exactly the opposite effect, the fact being that it was found that children could be maintained on £16 a year in an institution in Canada as Against £32 a year in a similar institution in this country. He regretted very much if it came under the rule, and he only ventured to make this explanation because the Amendment was intended to have precisely the opposite effect to that on account of which it was to be ruled out of order. It was intended at one and the same time to reduce the rates and provide fresh air and greater opportunities for these children.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the effect of legislation was very often quite different from that which was anticipated.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved an Amendment to Clause 74, to leave out the words "or vice versa," and to insert the words "or having beer originally ordered to be sent to an industrial school he is subsequently transferred to or ordered by a Court to be sent to a reformatory school."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 43, line 20, to leave out the words "or vice versa,' and insert the words 'or having been originally ordered to be sent to an industrial school he is subsequently transferred to or ordered by a Court to be sent to a reformatory school."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel).
Amendment agreed to.
SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved to amend Clause 79 by leaving out "the Secretary of State may authorise," and inserting "may be declared by Order in Council to represent approximately the average cost of such training and meals." He had not had the time to refer to Section 16 of the Act of 1876, and it might be that the Under-Secretary would inform him if this particular section was only a reproduction of that Act. He did not know whether that was so.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not quite in this respect.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was going on to observe that he did not think, because an Act of Parliament had been passed
794
thirty or forty years ago, it followed that it was a good one, and that if they had an opportunity of amending it, if in their opinion it was wrong or had been proved to be wrong, they should not alter it. This Clause 79 said that the parents or guardians of any child might come to the managers of a certified day industrial school and ask them to take care of their child and give it industrial training and meals; and the clause authorised the managers to do that, provided such, a sum as the Secretary of State might authorise was paid by the parent towards the expense of training and meals. He thought that was giving too great a power to the Secretary of State. Under this particular clause the parents of a child went to the managers of a school and asked them to undertake the care of their children.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they went to the local education authority.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid it was the same thing. It said upon "the request of a local education authority and of the parent or guardian"—the two were bracketed together—the managers of a certified day school might, upon the undertaking of the parent to pay towards the industrial training and meals such sum as the Secretary of State should authorise, receive the child into the school under an attendance order or without an order of the Court. Therefore it did not at all follow that the parent was necessitous, and it was purely a question of chance. No sentimental Member of the House under those circumstances could get up and talk about the necessity of providing for those who could not provide for themselves. The parent could go to the managers and say: "Receive this child," and he dared say that was a good thing and he did not want to stop it. But his Amendment, if it were carried, provided that the cost should be the average cost of such training and meals, settled by an Order in Council. The result of that would be to relieve the ratepayers or taxpayers, upon whichever body the burden fell at present, and the burden would fall upon the parent of the child, and there being no question of necessitous people surely I he ought to bear the cost. He did not

795
seek that the parent should pay anything beyond the actual cost of training and food, but he thought that was the least he could do. The parent would receive the benefit of a large institution and teachers and of the training which was put at his disposal by the State, but he would be asked to pay the exact sum which the cost of that represented to the taxpayers or ratepayers. If his Amendment were not carried the Secretary of State might authorise a sum which might either represent more than the cost or less; but he only wanted to guard against loss to those who paid and who were sufficiently burdened at present. If his Amendment were carried, regularity would ensue, and everyone would know if he sent a child to these industrial schools what he would have to pay, and it would be the same in every industrial school in the kingdom; whereas if it were left to the Secretary of State for the time being, with a change of Government they might have a different regulation made, or there might be different regulations for different industrial schools. He thought he had made his point clear, and he begged to move.
CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 48, line 39, to leave out the words 'a Secretary of State may authorise,' and to insert the words 'may be declared by Order: in Council to represent approximately the average cost of such training and meals.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Baronet had asked him to state the provisions of the present law. It said that under these circumstances the sum to be paid by the parent should be such sum, not less than 1s. a week, as the Secretary of State might from time to time fix. It was now left to the Secretary of State, not to Order in Council, which was a somewhat cumbrous machinery for such a small matter. This question was fully discussed in Committee, and the Committee, animated by the knowledge that
796
this 1s. was not enforced very often and that in necessitous cases it was ignored, by a large majority decided that it should be left out and that the clause should appear as it did now. It was true that under this clause the parent who was by no means necessitous might, with the connivance of the education authority, get free meals for his children, but if these words were reversed the parent who was necessitous could never get his child into a day industrial school. This was the case of the truant child who was refractory and who absolutely refused to go to school. It was no use punishing the parent, because he did his best to get the child to school, but the child absolutely refused to go. The only thing to do was to get an order to send the child to a day industrial school, and he had to have his meals there because he was kept there all day. He went home at night, but it was like an ordinary industrial school—semi-penal. He agreed that the parents ought to pay if they could do so, as he did not think they ought to use the day industrial school system as an indirect method of outdoor relief. It was not intended for that purpose and ought not to be used for it, but where they had a parent who was necessitous who might not have 1s. a week to pay under any circumstances, some provision must be made and it was intended that the Secretary of State should make an order allowing exemption in proper cases, while providing that generally the cost of training and meals should be paid by the parent.
LORD R. CECILhoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment. These schools were amongst the most valuable in the country. They had settled the religious question now by a close adherence to the principle of the rights of parents, and therefore he would be reluctant to see any Amendment introduced in this Bill which would damage these schools. They ought to be far more numerous than at present. He believed they did a very great and valuable work from the religious and industrial point of view. Though there were penal powers to compel the children to attend he understood they were never put into force because they were unnecessary.

797
There was one point which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, in answering his hon. friend, did not notice, which was that instead of paying for industrial training, elementary education, and meals, the elementary education was now dropped out. That was perfectly right. He therefore hoped his hon. friend would not do anything now to impair the admirable work these schools were; doing.
MR. COCHRANEentirely agreed with what had fallen from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. The point raised by the junior Member for the City of London would certainly stereotype the charge that might be made for industrial training and meals. He understood that his hon. friend rightly considered that a stereotyped charge would make it impossible for necessitous children to be sent to these schools. In reading the clause of the Industrial Schools Act with this Bill he found a minimum charge of 1s. had to be made to meet necessitous cases, but he did not see that different treatment was to be meted out to others. It might be that the Secretary of State might authorise such a payment that it should not be a fixed sum. In all cases where the parent who could afford to pay took advantage of the truant schools he should pay the full amount, but where the parent was unable to pay for any of the meals he should be let off with a less sum. He wished to know if it was clear that that was what the hon. Gentleman intended. It was a point that should be cleared up, because hon. Members on both sides of the House would, he believed, like to have differential treatment with regard to the necessitous and the non-necessitous child.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELthought the words of the section, as they stood, covered the point of the hon. Member. The Secretary of State need not authorise one sum for all cases, but allow differentiation in such a manner as to meet the varying conditions of the cases. He would, however, consider the words before the Bill reached another place, and if he found that they were ambiguous he would add words to make it clear.
SIR F. BANBURY, having regard to the fact that it was the intention of
798
the hon. Gentleman to make some difference between the necessitous and the non-necessitous children, although he did not think it was clear in the Bill, expressed himself satisfied with the undertaking of the hon. Gentleman, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL, in moving the omission of Clause 90, said his reason was that the point was covered by Clause 93, and this clause was no longer necessary.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 52, to leave out Clause 90."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 55, line 31, at end, to add the words 'and the certificate shall be produced to the Court before which the person is brought."
"In page 56, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'ought not to be so committed,' and to insert the words 'is not a fit person to be so detained.'"
"In page 56, line 11, after the word 'custody,' to insert the words 'or to be of so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be so detained.'"
"In page 58, line 35, after the word 'be,' to insert the words 'liable to be.'"
"In page 59, line 6, after the word 'be,' to insert the words 'liable to be.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) moved an Amendment to Clause 108 for the purpose of obtaining from the Under-Secretary an explanation as to what was the exact meaning of the clause. So far as he could gather, the subsections of the clause did not mean anything particularly, except that they proposed to put before the magistrates the alternatives they would have. The effect of leaving out the words "or any other" would be to mike the alternatives operative, and give the magistrates a wider descretion than they now possessed. The particular point to which he wished to draw attention was that, whereas the magistrate had power to whip where the offence was

799
indictable, they had no power to whip where it was not. That seemed to have been taken away from them by an oversight. An Industrial Schools Bill passed the House of Lords in 1889, but for some reason or other never came into this House. That Bill gave the magistrates ample powers for dealing with the children brought before them, but it did not include this power. After its introduction in the House of Lords, however, a petition very extensively signed was got up for presentation to the House of Lords and to this House should the Bill reach this House. That petition was presented to the House of Lords by the then Archbishop of York, and was signed by five Courts of Quarter Sessions and no less than fifty chairmen of Petty Sessions throughout the country, and was in favour of whipping for non-indictable offences. So great was the weight behind that petition that the House of Lords in the following year brought in a Juvenile Offenders Bill which passed through the House, and which included this very alternative. If his Amendment were accepted it would make these alternatives really operative. His object was to enable magistrates to order the whipping of boys for non-indictable offences. The law as it now stood was somewhat peculiar. When a boy took apples from the ground and ran away with them he could be ordered a whipping by the magistrates; but the boy who climbed the tree, really the more serious offence, could not be ordered a whipping by the magistrates. He begged to move.
MR. RAWLINSONseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 59, line 36, to leave out the words 'or any other.'"
Question proposed, "That the words 'or any other' stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the noble Lord had correctly stated the purport of the clause, which did not confer any powers on anybody at all; it was merely a summary of possible ways in which children might be dealt with by the Court before which they were brought. The clause indicated various sorts of punishment, but it conferred no new power in addition to those which a
800
Court of Summary Jurisdiction now possessed. But the Court would have the advantage of seeing, in a single page of an Act of Parliament, the various courses which it was possible for them to pursue with regard to a particular child. The noble Lord's Amendment would not in the least effect the purpose he had in view. This Bill did not touch the question of corporal punishment at all. When he brought it in, there were two subjects which he was determined as far as possible to avoid. One was alcohol and the other flogging. He felt that to insert either in the Bill would give rise to considerable controversy. Therefore, save as to one minute point, not worth mentioning, he did not alter anything in the present law with regard to corporal punishment. Some hon. Members had requested him to abolish the existing, power of the Courts to inflict corporal punishment in the case of children; others urged that those powers should be extended. In a matter of such great controversy, he thought it far better to leave the law as it was, and if the noble Lord had any desire to amend it he might introduce a private Bill. The Amendment would not attain the ends its mover had in view, while on the other hand it would spoil the clause, which was a table showing the various courses which might be taken under this Act in dealing with a child.
SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that (g), on page 60 said "by ordering the offender to be whipped." He understood the Under-Secretary to say that the Bill had nothing to do with whipping.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No further powers.
SIR F. BANBURY: The result of provision (g) would be to order a whipping. The hon. Gentleman stated that he had avoided the questions of alcohol and flogging, but he presumed that by subsection (g) whipping could be ordered, and that if his noble friend's Amendment were adopted it would defeat his object, namely, to enable the magistrates to order a boy to be whipped. Therefore, he asked his noble friend not to press his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps correct him if he was wrong, but it would appear that by the law as it stood

801
a boy could he whipped if a magistrate so ordered.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he must confess that he was rather influenced by the observations of his hon. friend the Member for the City of London. He had not been clear, nor did he think many hon. Members had been clear, as to what was the effect of the clause as a whole, but, in the circumstances, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. But he would ask the Under-Secretary whether, putting aside all questions of flogging, he did not really think it a reasonable provision. It was not an argument as to whether whipping, as a whole, should be abolished, but whether in certain cases the magistrates should not have further discretion. There was a petition which had been signed by fifty-four chairmen of petty sessions—
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The noble Lord refers to the petition of 1861.
VISCOVNT HELMSLEY: No, 1890.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: A Bill was introduced in 1900 for that very purpose, but it was so strongly opposed in both Houses that it had to be dropped.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 61, line 1, after the word 'custody' to insert the words 'and care.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 61, line 33, at end, to add the words, 'Where it is intended to bring before a petty sessional Court a person apparently under the age of fourteen as coming within one of the descriptions mentioned in subsection 1 of Section 59 of this Act, and it is necessary that accommodation should be temporarily provided for him, a place of detention may be used for his accommodation until he can be brought before such a Court.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like the hon. Gentleman to give them some explanation of this particular Amendment.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid places of detention were provided under the Bill for children who had to be kept in custody when not bailed, or when not released on bail, instead of being kept in the police stations. Similarly, children remanded by the Courts were; to be kept in these places instead of being remanded to a prison. But there was a case which was overlooked that might arise under Section 59 (1) referring to children sent to industrial schools. A child might be found wandering, destitute and helpless, and be a proper subject to be brought before the Court and sent to an industrial school. What was to be done with him during the day or two days which might elapse before he could be brought before the Court? At present he would be kept in the police station. They wanted to avoid that. A place of detention was already provided for the other classes of children, and this should be used in the case he suggested. Therefore, he proposed to insert this Amendment here.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 112. The subsection, he said, was for the establishment of juvenile Courts, a new experiment; and it was provided by the subsection that, when a child was charged in the juvenile Court, only those concerned in the case were to be present and the public were to be excluded. He presumed that it was desired to avoid publicity. But if that were so, the remaining part of the subsection seemed to be extraordinary, because it said that bona-fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies should not be excluded. By this provision they took away a power of that kind which might exist in a particular Court, and while none of the public were to be admitted the Press were to be present—a course which would defeat the object of avoiding publicity. He should like an explanation from the Under-Secretary as to the object he had in view, and why he drew a distinction between the public, who were to be excluded, and the Press, whose representative might send reports to the local papers, doing much more harm to the child than would arise from the presence of people who were attracted to Courts of petty sessions by curiosity.
MR. BOWLES, in seconding the Amendment, said the course proposed by the Bill was exactly calculated to defeat the object of the Government. No doubt the object was to prevent, in the interests of the child, a crowd of people from going to see what might be very painful and disagreeable, but for his part he would greatly prefer the exclusion of the representatives of newspapers and news agencies. He really did not understand the principle on which the people were excluded and the representatives of the Press admitted, because the effect would be to spread publicity over a wider surface than could possibly arise from the presence of a few people in the back of the Court.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 63, line 21, to leave out subsection (2)."—[Mr. Rawlinson).
Question proposed, "That the words down to 'the' in line 24, stand part of the Bill.'"
SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid it was one of the great principles of English justice that it should be free and open, and that the public as a rule should be admitted. He would suggest that it should be an entirely discretionary power.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was a clause which extended to England the principle of juvenile Courts, which was rapidly spreading all over the world. Originating in America and Australia, it was now being adopted in Germany and other countries, and had already voluntarily been adopted in Birmingham and some other towns in England and always with very great advantage to the administration of justice in the case of juveniles. It was the very essence of the idea of juvenile Courts that they should have as much privacy as possible. A juvenile Court was a place in which magistrates, as a rule specially chosen for their qualifications in this regard, gave their decisions in cases in which children alone were charged with offences. They wanted to get away from the whole character and surroundings of the ordinary police Court, from the criminal atmosphere and the somewhat unsavoury
804
public that attached to and frequented the ordinary Court of Summary Jurisdiction. They wanted to get away from the procedure in which the poor terrified child was placed high up in a dock, surrounded by numbers of police and with a crowd of persons in the background, too frightened to tell the truth or to understand what was being said, and completely uninfluenced by the proceedings. What was desired was that in a sort of parental way the magistrate should come into close personal relations with the child and speak to him in a more human fashion than was possible in the ordinary surroundings of a police Court. That could only be done if the general public were not allowed to throng these Courts. The clause provided that the parties, the solicitors, counsel, and other persons directly concerned in the case, should have an absolute right of attending, and other persons should have a right of attending if the Court so gave leave in a particular case, but the general public should be excluded for the reasons he had given. From the point of view he had just been mentioning, of the general character of the juvenile Court, it did not matter if one or two reporters were there, while from the point of view of the administration of justice it was essential that the Press should have a right in all cases to be present. The newspaper reporters were the eyes of the nation, and if they were not there they could never be sure that in particular cases possibly some injustice might not be done. Therefore he was unwilling to permit the exclusion of the public to extend so far as to exclude also the; representatives of the Press, and for these reasons these words were inserted in the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwood assumed that the purpose of the clause was to prevent a child being marked and known as criminal. That was not the purpose of the clause. It did not matter very much to the child whether his name was in the newspapers or not. What mattered was whether the friends and relations knew he had been before a Court of Justice. If they knew, it mattered very little indeed whether the outside public knew or not. From that point of view be did not think this limitation on the privacy of the Court was open to objection, and he trusted the House would permit the clause to remain as it stood.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that as to the advisability of juvenile courts there was no difference of opinion whatever. The late Home Secretary had taken steps to secure that the trial of children should take place in private. The hon. Member considered that children under certain circumstances would be too frightened if the public were admitted. That might be so in some cases, but, on the other hand, there were many hardened little offenders who appreciated advertisement, and in permitting the Press to attend, they would be gratifying that very taste which the hon. Member would wish not to allow to be cultivated. But it was a fundamental principle that the public should be admitted to the Courts. The hon. Member admitted that, to a certain extent, by admitting the public by special leave. Why could he not extend the same provision as regarded the Press? Why should it not be left to the magistrate to decide whether the Press should be admitted? It was not at all desirable that various incidents in these delicate cases should be made public, and if the public were excluded, the Press would give wider publicity to these delicate details. He supported his hon. friend's Amendment.
*MR. HORRIDGEsaid the clause as it stood seemed to put the House in rather a difficulty, because on the one hand one had a very strong feeling that the right of the public to be present in some form or other ought to be retained, and one also felt that the publicity one wanted to avoid in regard to children was put in perhaps its most objectionable form. The suggestion that it should be left to the magistrates was one which was most undesirable. His view of the matter was that upon the whole the right of the public to have some audience was more important than the question as to whether or not a particular child would suffer by publicity. He quite agreed with the first half of the section, because the terrorising of the child by treating it as if it was in a Court and not in a room was avoided, and the right of the public to know what was going on was preserved. On the whole, he thought the Government were right.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he should certainly support the Amendment. It was most necessary to be cautious in new legislation of this kind, that the public should have the opportunity of studying for themselves if they eared to do so, how juvenile Courts worked. He had in his mind cases where injustice might possibly be done accidentally by the public-being excluded. It was very difficult sometimes to find out exactly what case was going on in the Court, and anyone not directly interested in the case was not allowed in. It was just possible that some good-hearted person who was excluded would, if he had been allowed in the room, have decided to take charge of one of the children which would otherwise have been sent to an industrial school, and thus the clause would defeat the end of making the future life of the child as comfortable as possible. He did not think the Court would be overcrowded by the class of persons indicated by the Under-Secretary. The public as a whole were very sympathetic in any case where sympathy was to be extended, and no unnecessary noise or applause was ever allowed. The more difficult it was made to commit children to these homes, the better. The children would be practically unknown to the public which would not take very much interest in reading the cases, and they would sink into oblivion as soon as they were tried. Therefore an increasing inducement might possibly be held out to the magistrates to commit boys straight off to a home. It was an advantage to many of these homes to have boys committed to them, and the more difficult it was made the better. They got a Government grant, and he understood in Ireland there was only one industrial home that ever had to submit its annual report and statements of accounts to any Government auditor. The consequence was that the more boys they got into these homes the larger grant they got, and they turned it into a business transaction The Bill would be an improvement if this were struck out.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for East Manchester had made an admirable speech in favour of this Amendment. He put his arguments very clearly; he was surprised to

807
hear him wind up his speech by saying mat he was going to support the Government. In Clause 118 they had already provided for all the evils which the Under-Secretary anticipated. They had been told that as long as the parents knew what was going on, it did not matter about the public knowing. In that case what harm could be done by accepting this Amendment, because the damage to the reputation of the child would have been done by the publication of possibly garbled or inaccurate reports in the Press. More harm might be done by the Press than by allowing a few people to remain at the back of the Court. For those reasons he should support the Amendment.
*MR. REESsaid there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that subsection (2) was sound, and the only doubt was as to whether the Press should be excluded. It was too late in the day to discuss whether the Press should be excluded. The Press had been described as "the eyes of the nation," and if this proviso were omitted he did not think it would conduce to the popularity of the Bill. In Montgomeryshire he was sure the exclusion of the Press would be very much objected to by those who wanted, for good and sufficient reasons to watch the working of the Act. The Press representatives when appealed to were always very willing to exclude anything that it was undesirable to publish, and be did not think the representative of any decent newspaper would wish to publish anything prejudicial to the future life of a child. Besides if the Press nowadays wanted to get hold of anything they would get it, and, therefore, it was much better to give them proper facilities. It might be said of the newspapers, as was said of one-half of their readers—
If she will, she will, you may depend on't.
If she won't, she won't, and there's an end on't.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the hon. Member opposite had misunderstood the position, because the Press and the public would still be at liberty to attend the Court. The point was that the public ought to be admitted to this new Court. They had been talking quite casually about taking children away from their mothers, but there was no better lesson to be given to the public than to be present in Court, as he had often been, on
808
occasions when orders had been made. The magistrates ought to be carefully watched by the public, and he submitted that this was a most reasonable proposal.
MR. GOULDINGsaid the Under-Secretary had given as a reason for the retention of this subsection that similar transactions had taken place in Germany and the United States with beneficial results. He had also argued that if the public were left out the magistrates would adopt a different tone than they would if the public were admitted. It was also stated that if the Court was practically empty the magistrate would be inclined to adopt a paternal tone. He had a greater opinion of the Bench than to think that they would be influenced in that way, because he was sure they would deal with all cases on their merits. It should not be over-looked that this Bill dealt not only with children but with youths up to the age of sixteen, and instead of leaving the question of publicity to the magistrates, Parliament was laying down that the public should be excluded. He believed in both the Press and the public being present. Many of the children would be wayfarers, with no one to look after them and no relatives as parties to the case. He much preferred the safeguard of open Courts and publicity. If there was anything likely to arise in a case in regard to which publicity was undesirable, the magistrate could be allowed to clear the Court, but in the vast majority of cases there would be no cause for alarm. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.
MR. CARLILEsaid his hon. friend had covered most of the objections to this Amendment He would like to know why the members of the Bar were to be excluded from these Courts. It was important that barristers, who would no doubt take a special interest in defending cases in which children were concerned, should have free access to such Courts, but under the provisions of this section the members of the Bar, if not immediately concerned or retained in connection with the particular charge being tried, would be excluded from the Court.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Court may give leave.
MR. CARLILEsaid the magistrates could clear the Court without this provision.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: They have no power to do that now.
MR. CARLILEsaid he knew that they had cleared the Court again and again. He had not heard that they had exceeded their power in doing so. Why should they pass a special provision which would exclude members of the Bar from the Court? It was in every way desirable that those gentleman should have access to the Court from the educational point of view and that they should have the opportunity of learning the nature of the difficulties which surrounded child life. He sincerely hoped on that ground that the Amendment would be accepted. It was also most desirable that police court missionaries should have access to the Court because they were interested in the reclamation of those who had gone wrong, and also in preventive work in relation to young persons. Why should Parliament at this time of the day hamper and hinder the police court missionaries, who were hand in glove with the bench in preventive and reclamation work? Surely it could not be necessary under this Bill to exclude from the Court missionaries and charitable persons who would be likely to render aid in the case of children.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It does not.
MR. CARLILEsaid that unless the Court missionaries were in the case they could be excluded from the Court under this objectionable provision. The magistrates ought to have a free hand in the matter. He thought a strong case had been made out against the retention of the section. He hoped the Under Secretary would accept the Amendment. This was not a party question, and he appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to support the Amendment, which went a long way towards providing for the welfare of the children concerned.
SIR GILBERT PARKERhoped the Amendment would be accepted. He did not think sufficient consideration had been given by the Under-Secretary to the question which had been raised.
810
He admitted that the intention of the Government was good, namely, to exclude from the Court of Summary Jurisdiction any element of sensationalism, to do away with curiosity, and not to minister to the baser minds of a sensation-loving public. But there was something far more important than that. This was a new experiment, and it was absolutely necessary that the public and the Press should have an opportunity of judging what that experiment was doing. What opportunity would they have if the proposal of the Government were adopted? In establishing such a Court as this, which made a demand on the good feeling and commonsense of the community, it was absolutely necessary that the community should be convinced. If the Court were established under the proposed conditions there would immediately be created doubt and anxiety in the minds of the public generally They were at the very beginning of this experiment, and it seemed to him that the Government were taking the worst possible course in excluding from the Court influences which could only be for good. The hon. Gentleman said the magistrates had no power to clear the Court. He would have received the support of hon. Members on that side of the House if he had suggested that that power should be given to the magistrates in this particular case.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the magistrates had only power to clear the Court in case of disturbance.
SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether he was to understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the magistrates had no power to clear the Court except in case of disturbance.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the magistrates had no power to say that the public should not come into Court. In the Children's Court at Birmingham they were only able to exclude the public by persuasion.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that was exactly what he wished to arrive at. Did he understand the hon. Gentleman to say that if in a case tried in the juvenile offenders Court it was deemed desirable in the public interest that the unpleasant circumstances connected with

811
it should not be stated in open Court, the magistrate would not have the right to say to the people in the Court, "You must leave." If that was so, the hon. Member had not taken the right course. The Government ought to have trusted to the discretion of the magistrates. They had always conducted the Courts of this country with singular discretion, tact, and good judgment. The Court proposed to be established ought to have over it the supervision of honest and sincere public opinion. He did not believe that one in a thousand would go to Court to hear children tried, except from sympathy with them in their miseries and shame. It was desirable that the public should be able to learn from day to day through the Press of the evils which the Court was intended to deal with effectively. Reference had been made to the children's Courts in the United States. These Courts had proved most successful, but he did not understand that they were on the same basis as the Court proposed by this clause. In this case the magistrates were tied down to impose the strict penalties which the Bill provided for, while in the United States Courts the Judges had almost absolute discretion. The two things were not on all fours, and the hon. Member was not well advised in referring to the
United States Courts to justify this particular proposal.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELexpressed the hope that the Amendment would not be pressed. He felt convinced that if the Amendment were accepted and the subsection omitted, the object they had in view would be completely defeated. Many of his hon. friends took the keenest interest in this particular subsection, but they had not spoke in defence of it, merely because they wished to economise the time of the House. He knew that generally on that side of the House his action would be deplored and condemned if he accepted the Amendment. In order to induce hon. Members not to press it, he would not move the next Amendment standing in his name to insert the word "special." He hoped that would remove some, if not the whole, of the objection to the clause. There was an understanding that the discussion on the Report should finish and the Third Reading be taken by 8.15, and also that some Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Bill should be considered. He appealed to hon. Members to allow the division to be now taken.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 265.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brodie, H. C.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brooke, Stopford

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Alden, Percy

Bryce, J. Annan

Dobson, Thomas W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duckworth, James

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Astbury, John Meir

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Atherley-Jones, L.

Byles, William Pollard

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Erskine, David C.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Essex, R. W.

Barker, John

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Everett, R. Lacey

Barnes, G. N.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Findlay, Alexander

Beck, A. Cecil

Clough, William

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Bell, Richard

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fullerton, Hugh

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gilhooly, James

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Glover, Thomas

Bennett, E. N.

Cox, Harold

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Crooks, William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crosfield, A. H.

Grant, Corrie

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Crossley, William J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Black, Arthur W.

Curran, Peter Francis

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dalniel, James Henry

Gulland, John W.

Brace, William

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Branch, James

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Mond, A.

Snowden, P.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hart-Davies, T.

Morrell, Philip

Soares, Ernest J.

Harwood, George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stanger, H. Y.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Myer, Horatio

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Steadman, W. C.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Napier, T. B.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholls, George

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Norman, Sir Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Summerbell, T.

Hodge, John

Nuttall, Harry

Sutherland, J. E.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor; Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Hyde, Clarendon

Pirie, Duncan V.

Tillett, Louis John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Dr.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Toulmin, George

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor Swansea)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

Ure, Alexander

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Verney, F. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Walsh, Stephen

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Wardle, George J.

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Waring, Walter

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waterlow, D. S.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Watt, Henry A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Weir, James Galloway

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lynch, H. B.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Whitehead, Rowland

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Crae, Sir George

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Maddison, Frederick

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Mallet, Charles E.

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Marks, G. Croyd on (Launceston)

Shackleton, David James

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Marnham, F. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Yoxall, James Henry

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Massie, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir. Alex, F.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hill, Sir Clement

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hills, J. W.

Baldwin, Stanley

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Fell, Arthur

Keswick, William

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Kimber, Sir Henry

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Fletcher, J. S.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bull, Sir William James

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cave, George

Gordon, J.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Moore, William

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morpeth, Viscount

814

815

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Thornton, Percy M.

Nield, Herbert

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Valentia, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Percy, Earl

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Younger, George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanier, Beville

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Carlile.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

MR. RAWLINSONmoved to leave out in Clause 113, the words "or young person." The clause actually prevented anyone under the age of sixteen from being present in a criminal Court. He thought the Government would see that that was carrying restrictive legislation too far. He could understand that children under twelve or thirteen years of age should be prohibited from being present at the trial of certain cases; but though he was as strongly in favour of protecting the morals of young persons as anyone could be, it was going too far to prohibit young persons from being present in Court during the trial of other persons.
LORD R. CECILsaid it surely could not be intended to exclude all young persons from criminal Court proceedings. He had always thought that to take schoolboys to listen to the proceedings in selected criminal trials was the finest instruction which could be given to them; and therefore it would, in his opinion, be a thousand pities to exclude young persons up to the age of sixteen from listening to and witnessing such trials. Of course no one would allow them to be in Court in certain cases, but their exclusion should be left to the discretion of the Judge.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 63, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'or young person.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that there was a good deal of force in the Amendment. The clause as it stood might operate harshly in preventing young clerks from attending criminal trials. In all the circumstances he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 64, line 19, at beginning to insert the words 'In addition and without prejudice
816
to any powers which a Court may possess to hear proceedings in camerâ the Court may.'"
"In page 64, line 21, to leave out the words 'the Court may.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendment, agreed to.
*MR. CLAUDE HAY*MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved the omission of Clause 118, which relates to the prohibition against pawns being taken from any person under fourteen years of age. Pawnbrokers were not, he maintained, engaged in a business which could be regarded as either wicked or which was detrimental in any sense to those in terested in it or to their customers. In many respects pawnbrokers were properly described as the bankers of the poor, and it seemed to pass an unmerited censure upon them to make it appear that a child, apparently under fourteen years of age, who went into a pawnshop to pawn something, was going into a place where he or she could only find evil. It was very hard, if the father was in bed, if the mother who had to look after younger children could not send a child under fourteen years of age to the pawnbroker to provide for the immediate needs of the family. It could not be argued that there had been any evidence accumulated to show that the pawnbroker had been an influence for evil in child life. He believed he was correct in saying that in those cities where there were children's Courts pawnbrokers had been publicly thanked by the magistrates for their assistance in the detection of crime. He was well aware that in the Committee attempts were made to make this clause more stringent than it was, but those efforts were defeated. He was also aware of the strong opposition of those engaged in the pawnbroking trade to anything on these lines. He thought the care of the children and their proper rights, and safeguards for them, could be very well met without this clause becoming part of this Bill. Therefore, he begged to move its omission from the Bill.
MR. FELLformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 65, line 1, to leave out Clause 118."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there was no intention, of course, by this clause to place any stigma on the trade of the pawnbroker. It was a respectable trade, sanctioned and controlled by law. At the same time, Parliament had long recognised that it was a trade that provided a means of easily disposing of the proceeds of a theft. For many years past, under the Pawnbrokers Act of 1872, pawnbrokers had been prohibited from having any dealings with children under twelve, though so far as London and Liverpool were concerned the age was sixteen. It was originally proposed in this Bill to make sixteen the universal age, but that had been met with a great deal of opposition in the Committee, and it was finally decided to make the age fourteen, and leave it sixteen in London and in Liverpool. He might further point out that the pawnbroking trade had no objection to this clause. The Pawnbrokers' Association offered no opposition to it. Under those circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RAWLINSON, in moving the omission of Clause 119, said that this was the last Amendment that he should propose to this Bill, and for that reason, if for no other, he hoped the Under-Secretary for the Home Department would accept it. He ventured to submit that this clause went much further than any clause ought to do in taking children away from their parents under these particular circumstances, namely, that if the parent went from place to place in the pursuit of work and the child failed to get proper education, a constable should have power to arrest the parent and punish him and take the child away altogether. That
818
seemed to him particularly harsh. There was the case of a mother who, in all probability, was very fond of her child and treated her well, but who, from the profession she followed, travelled about the country—it might be with a circus or as a hawker, or led a nomadic life of that kind. Owing to that, she was unable to have that child educated as well as it should be, but at the same time she was on perfectly friendly and affectionate terms with the child, and the child was on perfectly affectionate terms with the parent, by whom it was well treated. It was under those circumstances that that child of perhaps six or seven years of age was taken away altogether from the parents and placed in one of these schools. He submitted that that was harsher treatment than was merited by the parent. Yet, if this Bill passed, the child was to be taken away altogether. It was an extremely harsh piece of legislation. The House, he knew, would have been against him if there had been a question of immorality or improper conduct on the part of the parent, as was shown at an earlier period of the Bill. But in a case such as he had suggested it was a monstrous thing to take a child away from its parent and shut it up in an industrial school for good and all. This clause dealt with a class that might not have too many friends, but who at the same time were sincerely attached to their children, and who tried to bring them up as respectable citizens. Under these circumstances he begged to move the omission of the clause.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment. He thought this was a clause which ought not to be allowed to pass, and hoped it would be withdrawn from the Bill. Parliament ought to be very careful in a matter of this kind. The House must remember that this class was an inarticulate class, and that whatever injury they might suffer at the hands of the House, the House would never hear a word of it. It seemed to him to be a very strong order to say that because a person wandered from place to place in pursuance of his trade or avocation, and took his child with him, the law should be allowed to step in and say that the child was to be taken from him. That seemed to him to be

819
one of the most interfering projects of legislation that had ever been proposed. It could not be a question of such tremendous magnitude as to make it a matter of importance. The Under-Secretary might be able to give the House some statistics on the matter, but he did not think the number of children who evaded education in this way was so great as to make the matter a very important one. It must be remembered that they were not dealing with a bad class of people. In fact they were good people, and people who had great ideas of bringing up their children properly. In point of fact, he had noticed that children of this class had very often a greater regard for their parents, and a greater conception of their responsibility to their parents, than children of other classes seemed to have. Nobody could say, as a whole, that, these children were badly brought up or suffered from having a lower standard of education than those children who had a permanent residence in a town. After all, there were other forms of education than that given in the elementary schools of the country, and some of these children obtained a far more valuable education through their mode of life and were taught how to maintain themselves in life in a far better way than the children of the schools. Hon. Members ought to ask themselves whether the advantage to be gained by the clause was sufficient to counterbalance the great injury which it was going to inflict upon the parents of the children themselves. That it would inflict a great injury, nobody would deny. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider the matter very carefully before they passed such a clause as this.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 65, line 7, to leave out Clause 119."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment had entirely misconceived the purpose of the clause. This was not a clause to enable the children of
820
vagrants to be sent to an industrial school; that was the law now. This clause was on the contrary intended to obviate that and to provide an alternative by which vagrant children could be rescued. The problem of the vagrant child was one of the most difficult problems to be solved. They must be rescued—although it was quite true there were only a few hundred of them. It was well-known that vagrancy was a most prolific source of crime. It was perfectly certain that vagrancy, so far as children was concerned, was in many cases an apprenticeship to crime and there was nothing which those interested in questions of child welfare desired more than that this problem should be solved. He agreed that it was harsh to step in and say to a person: "Because you are a vagrant your child shall be taken away from you," but that was the law under the Industrial Schools Act, which said that children found wandering and not under proper care and guardianship should be brought into the industrial schools. Proper guardianship had been interpreted to mean that a person of the tramp class, without any permanent abode, might not be a proper guardian for his child. Indeed circulars had been issued by the Home Office to that effect in order to clear up the doubt in the minds of certain magistrates. This section of the Industrial Schools Act had not been put into operation very largely, because a child could not be sent to an industrial school unless the local authority would pay for it. Local authorities very naturally said: "Why should this child, who is me elv passing through our county, be educated and kept by us for four or five years?" One could not blame the local authority, and the question was what other course could be adopted, so far as these children were concerned. It had been a matter of very great anxiety to him in framing this Bill. To say that they must go to an industrial school was to relieve that parent of all responsibility, because it was impossible to collect the contribution from the vagrant parent, for the reason that the child having been got into the school, when it was desired to collect the contribution, it was found the parent had wandered away. The clause no doubt did repeat the present law with regard to industrial schools, but

821
it brought in a new and alternative machinery. It applied the machinery of the Education Acts to these cases. It was necessary to adapt the machinery of the Acts in order to make it applicable to and enforceable in these particular cases, for those Acts contemplated a stationary population, and were useless in the case of parents who wandered with their children through the areas of a series of education authorities. The home worker was not allowed to keep his child from school, and in the same way it was proposed to punish these men if they deprived their children of the benefits of elementary education. So far as taking the child away from the parent was concerned, that was not a new provision, and, as was the case at present, it would be rarely enforced. The Government believed that the result of the clause would be that these children would be left with some relative or put out to board in some way, as showmen now dealt with their children. It was the vagrant alone, who carried his child from place to place, whom this clause would touch. It was the only practical way of dealing with the problem.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the Under-Secretary had hardly been so convincing as he generally was with regard to this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman proposed to repeat a law which was already in operation. His (Viscount Morpeth's) point was that when it had been discovered that a particular course was futile in the first place, there was no utility in repeating it. To repeat it did not make it any more efficacious, it simply clogged machinery with one more useless piece of mechanism. The hon. Gentleman called in another bit of machinery, viz., one of the provisions of the Education Act, for the enforcement of education, through the attendance officer. But that was not likely to be more efficacious than the other system. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that a great many people now slipped through the compulsory clauses of the Education Act. Everybody knew, for instance, that there were a large number of people resident in the great cities who were always moving from house to house. No sooner had the attendance officer scheduled them as
822
being in one district than they moved into another, and it was notorious that by this method, large numbers of children escaped the compulsory provisions of the Education Act, although resident in great cities. How was it possible that the children of vagrants moving all over the country could be caught by the attendance officer? There would be no onus on any local authority to do this, because they would not be desirous either to find accommodation, or to provide for children who did not belong to their district. Earlier in the afternoon he had supported the hon. Gentleman because he recognised that where parents were vicious or immoral it was only right that the State should step in and remove the child from the parent who, by his vice and immorality, had rendered it necessary. But these persons whom they were now dealing with had not committed any crime or done anything sufficiently bad to render it necessary that these children should be taken from them. Although there were bad people amongst them, and although a vagrant life must facilitate crime, it was not proved that these people were so bad, that their children should be taken from them. He hoped the Government would give a friendly consideration to this Amendment, as he thought the Government were going too far by this clause, by which it was proposed to remove children from the custody of their parents when it could not be proved that the parents were doing the least harm to their children.
MR. MACLEANdid not for a moment deny the kindness of the motives which actuated the mover and seconder of the Amendment, but he did not think they quite realised the difficulties of the problem with which the clause sought to deal. It was intended by this clause to get at that section of the vagrant class who habitually ill-treated and neglected their children. To show that this was a real problem, he pointed out that during the past few years the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children had had to deal with 35,000 children, who had been severely ill-treated and neglected by those who were in charge of them. In many cases the persons who had the control of these

823
children were not the parents at all, but persons who had hired them and hawked them about all over the country. Not long ago there was a little girl about seven years of age who had only one leg. She was discovered, probably in a common lodging-house, by a vagrant who had only one arm, who thought it would be a very happy combination for extracting the sympathy and financial support of the public. What did he do? He took the little child he had picked up for some consideration with him, and ultimately it was found with its stump exposed, and after, at an examination, to have suffered from horrors which could scarcely be alluded to. That man was sent to prison for twelve years. Another case was that of a woman who was taking her own child about the country. The condition of that child was too vile for comment. Its head was a moving mass of vermin. There were other cases which might be mentioned. He admitted that what was in the mind of the mover of the Amendment was that these cases were already efficiently dealt with, but that was not so. These children must be rescued before they arrived at that condition, and they could be rescued. That was the problem with which they had to deal. It was not dealt with by the present law, and this was the most effectual way of dealing with it. He earnestly hoped, in view of what the Under-Secretary had said, and of the general information before the House, that all would help to save this class of children from the suffering to which they were unnecessarily subjected at the present time.
*MR. LUPTONassociated himself with those who moved and seconded this Amendment. He thought it was a most drastic thing to say that a man who was moving about the country in a caravan, it might be with his children, should be arrested because his child could not spell "receive." It had been held by a magistrate in London that if a child misplaced the vowel in the word "receive" he had not an efficient elementary education, and he thought that such a drastic clause as this should never be passed by a British House of Commons. Clause 12 dealt with every possible case of parents who
824
exposed, ill-treated, or neglected their children, or caused unnecessary suffering in the way to which the hon. Member for Bath had referred, and therefore this provision was not necessary for that purpose, as the parents were already liable to two years' imprisonment. The hon. Member dealt with this, as if in cases in which parents were fond of their children and their children were fond of them, it was not a great hardship to snatch a parent from a child or vice versa, because the child had not got this elementary education. The question was what was elementary education, and who was the proper person to give it? Was it some youth or girl acting as a pupil teacher, with a class of fifty children in an overcrowded school-room, or was it for the mother of the child to give it under circumstances in which fresh air could be obtained? There was in these days of sanitary reform a movement to procure for children fresh air, and how could the child be better off or happier than going about the world with its parents? What did a little smattering of the A. B. C. or of arithmetic which a child got in schools, and which was frequently forgotten, matter, unless the knowledge was kept up afterwards? Here they were going to snatch these children from parents who, no doubt, had an honest mode of life, which prevented them from stopping in towns and sending their off-spring to school regularly. Where mother and child had lived together for a number of years, they were often "bound up in each other," and to take an infant away from a parent under those circumstances might be very serious indeed. If the child went to an industrial school the parent did not know what sort of treatment it was given. In some of these schools there was a great deal of stick. There was a good deal of talk about the birth rate declining, but it seemed to him that if they persecuted the parents of children in this way, it was likely to lead to a still further decrease of it. Then there was a good deal of talk about population aggregating in towns, but this would make it impossible for parents except in towns to have their children educated. The scientific experience of the last thirty years taught us not to separate the parents from the

825
children if we could help it, although he knew there was a certain school of thinkers who thought that the parent was the very worst person to have the charge of a child of their own, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman who had so cleverly and courteously conducted this Bill through the House was one of that sort. He hoped he would accept the Amendment.
*MR. R. DUNCANthought they were dealing with a very difficult problem. This clause recognised no distinction between very different kinds of people, but in fact there was a great difference between, on the one hand, itinerant dealers and those who lived in "houses on wheels" (caravans, etc.), and
on the other hand, the abject wanderers they too often encountered in the highways and bye-ways of our land. They did not want to see these vagrants carrying children around the country with them who were wretched and dirty, but it seemed to him that the clause went much too far, especially for a penal clause. While he thought the country was bound to see that every child had some education, he thought this clause went too far, and as it was so stringent he should be compelled to vote for the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 266.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Alden, Percy

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Duckworth, James

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Barker, John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lewis, John Herbert

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Beck, A. Cecil

Erskine, David C.

Maclean, Donald

Bell, Richard

Essex, R. W.

M'Callum, John M.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Crae, Sir George

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginall

Benn, W. (Tow'r Hamlets, S. Geo

Fenwick, Charles

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Bennett, E. N.

Findlay, Alexander

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Maddison, Frederick

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mallet, Charles E.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Glover, Thomas

Markham, Arthur Basil

Black, Arthur W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Lauceston)

Brace, William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Marnham, F. J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Grant, Corrie

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Brodie, H. C.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Massie, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bryce, J. Annan

Gulland, John W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Molteno, Percy Alport

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mond, A.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morrell, Philip

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcest'r

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Myer, Horatio.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Clough, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholls, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henry, Charles S.

Norman, Sir Henry

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grins'd

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hodge, John

Nuttall, Harry

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cowan, W. H.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cox, Harold

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Craik, Sir Henry

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crooks, William

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Dr.

Crosfield, A. H.

Hyde, Clarendon

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crossley, William J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Curran, Peter Francis

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Dalziel, James Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rees, J. D.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Roberta, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Steadman, W. C.

Watt, Henry A.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Weir, James Galloway

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rowlands, J.

Summerbell, T.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Sutherland, J. E.

Whitehead, Rowland

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wiles, Thomas

Sears, J. E.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Seaverns, J. H.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Shackleton, David James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Tillett, Louis John

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Toulmin, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Ure, Alexander

Wood, T. M. Kinnon

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Verney, F. W.

Yoxall, James Henry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Snowden, P.

Walton, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Stanger, H. Y.

Wardle, George J.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ashley, W. W.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, J.

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Heaton, John Henniker

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bull, Sir William James

Hills, J. W.

Stanier, Beville

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Valentia, Viscount

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Keswick, William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Younger, George

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Viscount Helmsley.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Lupton, Arnold

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Amendments proposed—
"In page 68, line 10, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'except an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.'"
"In page 69, after the word 'child,' to insert the words 'or young person.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments agreed to.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he had undertaken when they reached the definition clause to bring up a definition of "intoxicating liquor," and he begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment a form of words adapted from the Licensing
828
Acts, and which he had not been able to put on the Paper.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 71, line 15, at end, to insert the words 'The expression "intoxicating liquor" means any fermented, distilled, or spirituous liquor which cannot according to any law for the time being in force be legally sold without a licence from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BOWLESasked whether that definition excluded all patent medicines

829
or preparations of that kind? He understood that some of these preparations were fermented and many of them were distilled and could not be sold otherwise than with an excise licence.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he did not think that these would be included, but he would consider the point and, if necessary, deal with it.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said the next Amendment was a drafting Amendment. Some objection had been taken in Committee to the drafting of the subsection dealing with summary jurisdiction in regard to children, the Act of Parliament for Ireland being slightly different from the corresponding Act in this country. He moved an Amendment to leave out subsection 7, and to insert another subsection which would make the law similar in both countries.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 77, line 23, to leave out subsection (7), and to insert the words: '42 & 43 Vict., c. 49. 47 & 48 Vict., c. 19. (7) References to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall, save as otherwise provided in this subsection, be construed as references to the Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) Act, 1884, and the reference to Section 10 of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as a reference to Section 4 of the last-mentioned Act. 14 & 15 Vict., c. 93. The reference to the provisions of the first-mentioned Act with respect to recognisances to be of good behaviour shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, with respect to recognisances to keep the peace. The reference to the First Schedule of the first-mentioned Act shall not apply. For the provisions of this Act giving power to make rules under the first-mentioned Act, the following provision shall be substituted: The Lord Chancellor of Ireland may make rules regulating the procedure of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act, and other matters incidental thereto, and all rules so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 79, line 37, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'for Ireland.'"
830
"In page 80, line 39, after the Word '1907,' to insert the words 'or any of those Acts.'"
"In page 81, line 29, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'for Ireland.'"
"In page 81, line 32, to leave out the words 'district board,' and to insert the words 'managers of a district Poor Law school.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. CHERRYnext moved an addition to Clause 132, having reference to the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, and said the Amendment which he submitted was suggested by reason of certain alterations which the House had made in Clause 26. The General Evidence Act, 1898, did not apply to Ireland; therefore, it was necessary to make the law as to evidence exactly the same in Ireland as it was in England.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 81, line 37, at end, to add the words: '61 & 62 Vict., c. 36. The reference to the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, shall not apply, but in any proceeding against any person for an offence under Part II. of this Act, or for any of the offences mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, such person shall be competent but not compellable to give evidence, and the wife or husband of such person may be required to attend to give evidence as an ordinary witness in the case, and shall be competent but not compellable to give evidence.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Amendments proposed—?
"In Schedule 3, page 85, line 3, in the third column, before the word 'In,' to insert the words 'Subsection 1 of Section 5 from the words 'and if the young person is a male,' to end of subsection.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
"In Schedule 3, page 85, lines 10 and 17, to leave out the words 'before he is sent to such reformatory school, and to insert the word 'as if he or she had been sworn.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments agreed to.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hour being near for private Bills, he would only formally move the Third Reading, expressing at the same time his deep gratitude for the favour with which the Bill had been received by the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he raised no objection to taking the Third Reading at the present moment. He would not trouble the House with any eulogy, but he should like to refer to the manner in which the hon. Gentleman opposite had conducted this Bill both through Committee upstairs and through the Report stage. By his courtesy and lucidity of explanation the Under-Secretary had been enabled to get this very long measure successfully through both these stages, and they were all very glad indeed to think that it would find its place in the Statute Book. It was never a Party measure. There were three or four clauses which they thought created new offences and to which they had objected, but so far as the Bill as a whole was concerned, it was a measure of which they thoroughly approved.
*MR. LUPTONsaid he should have had pleasure in voting for the Third Reading of the Bill if it had not been for the terrible penalties with which it was disfigured. Clause 12, for instance, dealt with the offence of not giving adequate food or clothing or lodging, or not calling in medical attendance, for which a person might be sentenced to two years imprisonment. It might be right to punish people for some failure in their duties, but it was not right to punish them to this extreme severity. In the 19th century they made great advance in the treatment of these offences, and reduced the scale of punishments to a great extent. He thought that they sometimes forgot that this was the 20th century, and, in drafting Bills, framed penalties of the most awful and terrible and horrible kind for offences committed by their fellow creatures. If this penalty were two months instead of two years it would have been quite sufficient. It would be very useful if every one of the Members of that House were sent to prison for two months—one month of ordinary imprisonment and the other month of hard labour. [An HON. MEMBER: You would go.] He dared say some of them would not come out alive; but he should be
832
willing to sacrifice himself if the others also went to gaol and the very fact of their having had the experience would he hoped lead to Bills not being disfigured with these horrible and terrible sentences, which were a disgrace to the age and to civilisation. He made these remarks in the hope that someone would recollect there were persons who objected to these drastic penalties, and were determined to oppose them. He could not find it in his heart and conscience to support a Bill which had such terrible penalties, and which reminded him of the middle ages and not the 20th century. He thought the Bill was intended to promote feelings of love and gentleness, and that the penalties should have been of a milder character, but for the reasons he had given he most respectfully objected to the Bill.

WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES PROHIBITION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.) moved the Second Reading of the White Phosphorous Matches Prohibition Bill, and expressed the hope that hon. Members would allow it to pass this stage, as it was a measure which had the approval of all sections of the House.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had no objection to the Second Reading being taken at the present moment. He thought it was a very desirable measure, but if there had been time he would have liked the Home Secretary to explain one or two points which arose, though they could be dealt with later. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to make some terms with the owners of patents, so that in future matches could be made by all match - makers without white phosphorous, and the particular privilege

833
would not be given to certain firms. These were points on which he wanted to be assured, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to give him an assurance. As far as he was concerned he raised no objection to the Second Reading.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not want to prevent the Second Reading being taken, but they wished to have an opportunity for discussion. Would the right hon. Gentleman commit the Bill to Committee of the Whole House?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he thought that it would be more convenient if the Bill were sent upstairs in the usual course. The points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would receive consideration, but he hardly thought it necessary to occupy time with them at present.

LONDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,)moved: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill a provision conferring purchasing powers on the London County Council. That any person affected by such a provision shall be entitled to be heard before the Committee upon any petition presented not later than 22nd October." He said the House would remember that the debate on the Second Reading was somewhat prolonged and animated, and the opportunity did not occur for the Government to deal with this question upon that occasion. It was part of the arrangement that this Instruction should accompany the Bill upstairs to the Committee, hence it had been thought necessary for him to move it at this juncture so that the Bill might get to the Committee without any further delay. He was not inclined to discuss the details of the Bill, indeed he thought he would be out of order in attempting to do so, because the
834
measure had been ordered a Second Reading. The Instruction itself was extremely simple, and dealt with a single point of substance, namely, that the Committee should insert in the Bill a provision conferring purchasing powers upon the London County Council. He would recall to the minds of hon. Members what happened in the early spring in relation to these electric Bills. They received an invitation from another place to nominate a certain number of members and set up a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons to consider these Bills. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then at the Board of Trade, was unable to advise the House to accept that invitation, and he made it clear that the reason he tendered that advice was that he thought it was all important that they should retain their freedom and remain untrammelled, so that when the Bill came back from the Lords they would have full freedom to deal with it in any way they thought fit and proper, and that was the reason why they refused to join the Lords Committee. As the House knew the Lords Committee gave these Bills a long and careful consideration, and the proceedings lasted thirty-one days. The London County Council were represented, and they urged that they should be named in the Bill as the purchasing authority. That was strongly resisted by the promoters of the Bill, and their opposition prevailed, for although the Lords favoured purchase, they left the purchasing authority indefinite. He thought that justified the wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in declining to commit the House, as they would have been committed, had they accepted the invitation from another place to appoint a joint committee. The position was now changed, because the promoters had been told that the Government would give the Bill no support unless they accepted this mandatory Instruction, and their terms had been accepted by the promoters. He begged formally to move the Instruction standing on the Paper in the name of the President of the Board of Trade.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill a provision

835
conferring purchasing powers on the London County Council. That any person affected by such a provision shall be entitled to be heard before the Committee upon any Petition presented not later than 22nd October."—(Sir H. Kearley.)
MR. ROWLANDS MR. ROWLANDS (Kent, Dartford) moved an Amendment to leave out "the London County Council." and insert "a central authority composed of representatives of the municipal authorities owning their electrical supplies within the area covered by the Bill." He said he had listened attentively to the speech in which the hon. Baronet had moved his Instruction, and those who had taken part in the previous stages of this Bill would be quite aware that the statement was absolutely accurate about the amount of feeling which was exhibited on the Second Reading, and also that considerable feeling still existed in the House in regard to this measure. He must say that he expected that the hon. Baronet would have given them some better reason for the attitude of the Government. They had put down a mandatory instruction, and they had told the promoters that unless they were prepared to accept it the Board of Trade could not support this Bill as they did on the Second Reading. He thought the House was fairly entitled to have some reason given from the Board of Trade as to why they had put down this Instruction in the specific terms in which it appeared on the Paper. However, as the hon. Baronet had not thought fit to give them that information—thinking no doubt, that those who had taken such a deep interest in this question were fully conversant with all the issues involved—he would try, in a short space of time, to give to the House a few of the reasons why he proposed the Amendment standing in his name. All those who were conversant with London and Greater London as well as the areas affected outside Greater London, which would be taken in under this Bill, realised that they were not there this evening discussing anything in connection with a small measure. Under the title of a private Bill they were discussing a measure which had received the sanction of the Government, and which, for good or for evil, would affect perhaps one of the largest areas of congested population
836
that it was possible for any measure of this kind to affect. They ought not for a moment to fail to realise the vast importance of this question. For some reason or other the hybrid Committee of 1906 to which the Bill promoted by the London County Council was referred recommended that the London County Council should be the purchasing authority, but they did so under certain conditions. He supposed the whole of the case of those who supported this instruction rested upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1906. He was fully prepared to give to that Committee and its deliberations all the consideration they deserved, but he thought it was only right the House should know that in the division upon that instruction only eight members of the Committee took part, five being for and three against it. He invited the House seriously to consider what this instruction meant, and what would be the effect upon the great area dealt with under the Bill. First of all, the London County Council governed an area of something like 117 square miles. This Bill extended far and away beyond that area, and he thought his friends on the London County Council had a fair amount of confidence when they asked the House to give to a body governing an area of 117 square miles, and consisting roughly of 130 members, the control over the huge area contained in this instruction. The area under this Bill was three times larger than the London County Council area. It was composed largely of authorities who had created their own municipal supplies, and he always thought that Progressives were strongly in favour of encouraging municipalities in this direction. There were three areas in his own division which had their own municipal supply. They had installed electric lighting and electric trams, and they did not want to come within the area of this Bill. This measure would introduce the competition of a large private concern in those three areas to which he had referred, without giving them any representation. It was quite a new theory for democrats that they should have no right whatever of representation on the body which might, under certain conditions, come in and purchase the whole of the undertaking

837
they had created. The three areas he had mentioned contained 14,311 acres, and a population of 58,519, who would have no representation whatever on this new body. The three places he referred to were Bexley, Dartford, and Erith, which were just on the outer ring of London. The population of those districts was rapidly increasing, and by the time this Bill came into operation they would be one of the most populous portions of the outer ring of London. To those areas they were going to deny the right of control over the authority set up in this Bill, and there would be no security for the huge enterprises which had been created in those areas by the funds of the ratepayers. This was being put forward as a democratic policy. They were going to say to them: "We deny you any right—any control—over that authority which is to be set up. You are going to have no authority over the huge enterprises which you by your energy and ability, and the fund; of your ratepayers, have created." And that was the policy which was advanced as a democratic policy. Gentlemen who opposed that policy were twitted with being retrogressive. If it was retrogressive, he was delighted to be retrogressive in this particular matter. He knew it would be said that they were forgetting one thing. This Bill at present was to be handed over to the hands of the London County Council. He admitted that at present it was only the London County Council area which was referred to, but hon. Members knew that there was going to be a larger London some day. Probably there was, but he had never yet heard that there was to be a larger London which was to cover anything like the area which this Bill covered. The Metropolitan police area extended to a radius of fifteen miles from Charing Cross, and that was generally taken as the area for greater London. But what did this Bill do? It included the borough of Gravesend. Did his hon. friends hope that they were going to take it into London? The Bill took in the small county borough of Croydon, which had a population of 133,000. It said: "We are going to absorb you, and you are going to have no voice." Surely his hon. friends who were Progressives on the County Council
838
had not forgotten their bitter experience over the water undertakings. Were they like the Bourbons to learn nothing? It was their policy which had landed London in the position it was in with regard to water. It was because they would not meet the municipal authorities in a proper manner; they thought they could extend themselves and absorb everyone else, and the result had been that after a long struggle on their part they failed to convince this House that they should be entrusted with the area of the Water Board. This Bill went far outside of that. So much for the larger London of which they would hear a good deal. He had read the debates, and he was delighted to find the strongest possible arguments in support of his present contention in the speeches of his hon. friends. Let the House consider for a moment the extent of some of the areas proposed to be absorbed by this Bill. He thought very few Gentlemen except those who were deeply interested in this question had really read this Bill and informed themselves with regard to the populations involved in it. The Bill took in areas of 51,947 acres in Essex, with a population of 708,696; of 32,414 acres in Kent, with a population of 214,563; of 25,232 acres in Surrey, with a population of 286,521; and of 52,671 in Middlesex, with a population of 600,168. These were the areas that were to have no representation, although in many cases they had bought up their own supply, with great benefit to themselves. These were the figures to-day. What would be the figures including outer London a few years hence? The population of Greater London might be taken at between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000. He was not pledging himself to a hundred thousand more or less. There was not a speaker who had supported this Bill who had not dwelt on one thing, and that was that there was going to be before long in Greater Outer London—if that term might be used—a population of between 12,000,000 and 15,000,000. He did not care which figure they took. Parliament was being asked in this instruction to say that, by the time the Bill had matured for purchase, the population within the area of the London County Council was

839
to have the whole representative control and the huge area outside was to have no control whatever, unless the County Council got a larger London Bill. But he was at present considering the position in case they did not get the Bill. If London was extended by the absorption of Dartford on the one hand, and Harrow and Willesden on the other, it would be necessary to give representation to the districts absorbed, and on the representative body there would be an opportunity for discussing the terms and conditions on which the properties were to be taken over. It was for these reasons that he moved the Amendment standing in his name. He felt very strongly that it would be very much better that they should enter into the discussion of this Bill under conditions which they could thoroughly well understand. He had referred incidentally to some of the municipalities which had built up successful undertakings, and he could multiply instances if further illustrations were necessary. It was said: "Ah! but what about the Water Board?" The Water Board, as he had already stated, was the outcome of the County Council not recognising the right to representation in connection with the other bodies outside. If Parliament made the mistake of agreeing to what this Bill proposed, he was afraid that they would not survive to see the purchase carried out. It might be said: "You are missing one argument. Do you not know that if we are taking away your representative board, we are going to create a beneficent body which will give you a bulk supply." He could not discuss the terms at present, but he might be allowed to say that it did not necessarily follow that the largest authority with regard to lighting supply was the best for the people. They had experience of that in London in regard to gas. Was their largest gas supply the cheapest? Those who consumed gas knew from their quarterly bills that that was not so. He hoped the House would not pass the instruction as it stood on the Paper, but that the Amendment would be accepted in order to protect the interests of municipalities in the matter of representation which a few years ago had the support of hon. Members who were going to oppose them to-night.
MR. WHITEHEAD, in seconding the Amendment, said his hon. friend had put the case so forcibly for the outside districts that he would only say a few words. He could not, help entering a protest against the attitude of the Board of Trade. This was not the first time that the Board of Trade had deliberately disregarded the interests of districts outside London. Only a few months ago there was before the House the Port of London Bill, and on that occasion, although about forty-two miles of the County of Essex were included in the Port of London, the interests of that county were handed over, so far as the Board of Trade was concerned, unreservedly to the representatives of the City of London, the mercantile interests of London, and the London County Council. On this occasion he must respectfully protest against the attitude of the Board of Trade as indicated in the instruction standing in the name of the President of the Board. It was quite true that London had very strong voting power in this House, and that the outside districts had not the same voice. A great public department like the Board of Trade ought to take a wider view, and foresee the developments of the future, and it ought not to be guided by temporary and accidental facts. The areas involved in the proposals of the Bill were three times the size of the area now subject to the London County Council. In that vast area great developments were going on. There was a tendency more and more for traders and manufacturers to set up their works outside the county boundary. There were now improved means of locomotion by means of electric railways, trams, and tubes. If that was so to-day, what would it be forty or fifty years hence? The clause proposed by the Board of Trade did not deal with the present time, but with a future more or less remote. He could not help feeling that if the Port of London Bill and if this Bill which would provide a cheap supply of electricity in bulk were passed, there would be an enormous extension of industrial activity which would increase the relative importance of the outside areas. He wished to lay the greatest emphasis on this aspect of the matter, and, at the same time, to enter his protest against the outside

841
districts being made in any way tributary to the London County Council. They ought to have their own complete independence and to be allowed to manage their own affairs on democratic principles without interference from the London County Council.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, to leave out the words 'the London County Council,' and to insert the words 'a central authority composed of representatives of the municipal authorities owning their electrical supplies within the area covered by the Bill."—(Mr. Rowlands.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*SIR JOHN BENNsaid he hoped that he might without offence congratulate his hon. friend on his admirable defence of Dartford. He would say that the case for Dartford and also the complaint of his hon. friend the Member for South East Essex could at once be met by leaving such places out of the Bill. There need be no difficulty about protecting the rights of all the undertakings in whose behalf his hon. friends so eloquently addressed the House.
MR. JOHN WARD: What about the others?
*SIR JOHN BENNsaid there was no doubt the others would have intelligence equal to Dartford to protect their own interest. He knew that this proposal had been described as an attempt to fasten on London another great monopoly. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He was extremely glad to hear that cheer from the other side of the House, because if his friends would listen to him for a minute or two he could prove to them that they were being led into the support of an existing monopoly of a much more dangerous and uncontrolled character than the one represented by the Bill before the House. He noticed that certain gentlemen who came from other parts of the country, and who were not familiar with the complexities of London, had been brought to a mistaken conclusion by the literature which had been circulated by the right hon. Member for Islington. With regard to its electric supply, London
842
suffered under two disabilities: by the existence of the undertakings set up by the borough councils and other local authorities which prevented their supplying an adequate bulk supply of electricity, and also by the existence of a number of companies over-lapping in their areas and inadequately equipped for this particular purpose. Hon. Members opposite had not recognised the fact that in supporting the right hon. Member for Islington they were backing up a monopoly which was already on the ground. The word "octopus" had been used. The "octopus" in possession was, he knew, a much more dangerous creature than the "octopus" which it was proposed to have regulated by this House and the Board of Trade. His hon. friend the Member for Dartford said that he was fighting a great monopoly, and he went on to mention the Water Board, declaring that the London County Council had failed to get its own water supply in consequence of the action of the outside authorities. Now, his hon. friend was following the same lines in order to prevent London getting its own electricity supply. If his friend's ideal was another Water Board to be fastened upon London, he hoped the House would deliver them from any such calamity. Why did he ask the House to reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dartford? It was because they had the backing of several eminent Committees. The Select Committee which considered the London County Council Electric Supply Bill in the session of 1906, reported as follows:—
"The Committee are of opinion that the best means of supplying of electrical energy in bulk, and for power and motive purposes, is by one large and exclusive scheme extending not only over the entire County of London, but also to adjoining boroughs and districts. … For the purpose of carrying out such a scheme some central authority is required with ample statutory powers and corresponding duties. … After giving full consideration to this question, the Committee are of opinion that the London County Council should be the authority."
The Select Committee therefore clearly indicated that the London County Council should be the purchasing authority. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] His hon. friend cheered that recommendation, but he would remind the House that years before they had tried to convince his friend and those behind him

843
that the London County Council should be the authority, but they failed. This was the fourth time they had tried to endow London with an adequate bulk supply of electricity, and he would tell the House that if this Bill were before it with the name of the London County Council on it the measure would receive the same opposition from the hon. Member for Dartford and his friends. What were the facts with regard to the area described by the hon. Member for Dartford? The administrative county of London constituted the most important area of supply; and according to the census of 1901 the county population was 4,500,000, whilst the population of the remainder of the area of supply was only 1,800,000. His hon. friend the Member for Dartford proposed to substitute for the London County Council a central board formed by the municipal and other authorities owning their electrical supply within the area covered by the Bill. Did he call that a democratic body? What had he done for the areas not represented by such places as Dartford? The capital expenditure in the county of London was represented by something like £18,000,000, while that on the area of supply outside the county, including Dartford, was only £2,700,000. This would give a good idea of the respective areas involved in this great question. The London County Council had every reason to safeguard the interest of the areas within London, because they had advanced £5,000,000 to sixteen local authorities to enable them to carry out their undertakings. He might say that their idea in supporting this measure was to do for London the same sort of thing which had been done with eminent success for the great city of Newcastle-on-Tyne and the districts on the north-east coast. The supply of electricity to Newcastle, and to both banks of the Tyne to Durham, Middlesborough and the surrounding neighbourhood had made the business of these cities and districts advance by leaps and bounds. He would remind his hon. friends that if they did not seize this opportunity of settling the question for London, he saw no prospect of anything being done for London for many years to come.
*THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL,): Order; the hon. Member cannot go into the merits of the Bill.
*SIR JOHN BENNsaid he would confine himself to the question before the House, and ask hon. Members to listen to the advice of two or three great Committees which had declared that the London County Council was the proper purchasing authority, as having the greatest interest in the matter. Although the London County Council was at present under the sway of the Party who sat on the opposite side of the House, it was united on this great question as to who should be the purchasing authority.
*MR. RADFORDsaid that whilst the instruction moved by the Secretary to the Board of Trade seemed to be to him inadequate and not satisfactory, inasmuch as it left untouched the extraordinary purchase clause, he did not think it would be improved by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dartford. The hon. Member for Devonport—the junior Member—the knighted Member—had given them some reasons which had no great effect on him, as to why they should vote against the Amendment. The hon. Member had voted against the Second Reading of a similar Bill in 1905, and voted for the Second Reading of this Bill last July, and he believed on the present occasion he intended to show his constituents his versatility by not voting at all. There were no other ways in which he could display his versatility. If they considered the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dartford it really amounted to this, that he proposed to set up for this matter of electric supply a second Water Board. He had the advantage of the hon. Member in this respect only, that it was his misfortune to sit for two or three years as a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, which was the greatest fiasco ever attempted in the name of local government. It was composed of sixty-six members, representing, he believed, about half as many again different constituencies

845
They were indirectly elected, so that there was not a single man on the Board who had any electors to whom he could appeal or who could call him to account for his conduct. They came from widely distant areas, and the questions discussed in the Water Board were only questions that he might call topographical. They referred to the conflicting interests of different districts which were covered by the Board. There was added to this the vice which was incident to the proposal of his hon. friend that members were elected by different authorities who came into being by elections at different dates. The result was that a man had no sooner become familiar with the routine of the Board than he was happily rejected by his constituents and replaced by somebody else.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL,): To a certain extent the hon. Member is in order, but he is going too much into detail in the matter.
*MR. RADFORDsaid that as soon as he got to know by sight a man on the Metropolitan Water Board he had been rejected by his constituents and was there no more.
MR. BARNARDdissented.
*MR. RADFORDsaid his hon. friend who interrupted him was an instance of the topographical structure of the Metropolitan Water Board. He represented an obscure district he believed in Hertford or some distant county, and was now dominating the Water Board as its Chairman. It was a proposal to reconstruct a Board of this kind which came from the hon. Member for Dartford. He had not told them how many authorities there were who owned electrical undertakings, but there were thirteen in the county of London and he believed twice as many outside, so that they would probably have a composite Board displaying all those topographical indiscretions to which he had referred, and it would be such a travesty of local government as that for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin was responsible.
846
It seemed to him that the state of things in which they had a great governing body like London providing services for some of the outside areas was to some extent anomalous, but it was not a practical difficulty and in the case of some of the great municipalities of the country it had worked with excellent success. It had been felt in Manchester and elsewhere that the functions of municipal service which were exercised by a municipality might well be extended beyond the limits of the borough with general satisfaction. He was prepared to accept the instruction of the President of the Board of Trade, but he hoped when the time came the instruction would be extended so that it might touch the purchase clause which was the essence of the whole measure.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLthought the debate showed how difficult this whole matter was. Here they had a conflict between the outside and the inside areas. The hon. Member for Dartford and the hon. Member for Essex came there in conflict with the London County Council, which the Board of Trade suggested should be put into the Bill as the purchasing authority. When they came inside the county they found the hon. Member for Islington, who was leading an attack on behalf of the inside municipal areas, fighting in conflict with the central authority, and so it was from beginning to end. Whether with regard to electric supply in bulk, water supply, or the Port of London, or any big question affecting the enormous population of this great part of the country they had these same difficulties perpetually arising. When they were asked: Why do not you settle things in London as they do in Glasgow or Birmingham or Manchester? the answer was: Because there is no unity whatever in London. They had a population that lived in what was called the administrative county area administered by the County Council. They had outside districts beyond the county area which were as much London as Charing Cross was, and yet they could get no unity inside the area, and it did not matter how they might fight inside the area. They could have the hon. Member for Dartford with them when they were talking about unification, or the City

847
Corporation, but directly it touched a district on the fringe of London that he happened to represent, local pressure was brought to bear upon him, he lost all the great patriotism of a great city, he was prepared to denounce his friends, and say it was due to their mismanagement that they lost control of the water supply of London. This only went to show how extremely difficult a problem this was for the Board of Trade to settle, and, as far as he was concerned, he was very glad the Board of Trade had put down this instruction. He could understand hon. Gentlemen opposite raising an objection to the instruction, but he could not understand hon. Gentlemen on that side opposing the Board of Trade. Why had the Board of Trade put this instruction on the Paper? It had been put down, he believed, because a great desire existed that the undertaking should be purchasable, not by an unknown and uncreated body, but by the central authority which controlled the largest area and the largest supply. This was the only authority that the Board of Trade could put in the Bill. Some day when the purchase took place the question raised by the hon. Member for Dartford would be very natural and proper to be considered, and of course it would come up. Who would propose that Dartford should be left entirely out of representation on the management of the bulk supply scheme? But directly they came to put in any other authority than the County Council they found themselves in the exact position that the hon. Member for Dartford found himself in, that he had to put down an Amendment which was absolutely impracticable, and which no Parliament could possibly accept. Fancy the Board of Trade putting down an instruction in the words proposed by the hon. Member. There had never been known such a thing. The Metropolitan Board of Works was not as bad as that. The hon. Member denounced the Water Board, but it was far better than the proposal that he had on the Paper. Directly they had an alternative to the proposal put forward by the Board of Trade they found themselves in a great difficulty, and that was the essence of the whole problem. What went to make up London? What was outside London? An hon. Member said
848
that if they could have this bulk supply Bill giving London and its outside areas cheap electricity, under the port authority Bill they would at once get cheap electricity and the outside areas would be able to supply it. Fancy saying the Port of London was an outside area of London.
MR. WHITEHEADsaid the hon. Baronet had entirely misrepresented what he said. He had said that under the Port of London Bill 42 miles of the county of Essex was taken and came under the control of the inhabitants, the merchants, and the County Council of London, and Essex had no representation at all. He was defending the right of Essex to be on the authority.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid he understood the hon. Member to argue that this 42 miles of the Port area, if left outside and if the instruction was not passed, would be able to give a great impetus to their trade, and that they would benefit very largely in consequence. Whatever view they took this was an excellent illustration of the position of London. The Government had promoted a Port of London Bill, and one of the first things required by that Port would be a supply of cheap electricity for the working of electric cranes. The Port of London had not got that, and did anyone say it was in an outside area? He was bound to say it was not an outside area. Whether they were dealing with tramways, electricity, or water, they could not take an artificial line, say up the Edgware Road, and say that beyond that was not part of London, any more than they could take Bow or Stratford and say that that was the end of London. He said that representation was essential in these outside districts, but there was nothing inconsistent in that with what the Board of Trade had put upon the Paper. The Board was bound to put in some body which existed to-day, and when the time came it would no doubt be the case that these outside areas would get representation. They had tried on the London County Council to settle this question, and he thought it would have been far better if the London County Council had been left to settle it, but the municipal solution of this great problem having been

849
considered impossible, he maintained that it was not just to deny to London the right to bring itself into line with the other great cities of the world. He should have no alternative but to support the instruction put down by the President of the Board of Trade.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid this had been a very pretty family quarrel, and he felt that it was almost a pity for him to interfere. He must say that he had listened with the greatest possible amazement to the speeches of the two hon. Members who used to represent the county council. He remembered perfectly well what they were told when they were on those benches—and it was quite possible that change of benches had some undesirable effect on those who sit on the front benches—he remembered hearing something like the eloquent words which the hon. Member used about the success of this electricity proposal elsewhere, and he pointed out then precisely what was pointed out now, that unless the measure of 1905 were adopted they would not succeed in getting cheap electricity for London. But he did not convince, for example, the hon. Member who was most violently opposed to that scheme. All he said about that was, not that the right hon. Gentleman had not a right to change his views, but that the arguments which wereobvious to him to-night, were obvious to them three years ago, and were quite as effective then as they were now. He was bound to say that he entirely sympathised with the main principles of the President of the Board of Trade in what he had done with regard to this Bill, although he thought they would not commend themselves to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was taking a proper and statesmanlike view of the interests of London with regard to this matter, but he was bound to say, also, that he could not support the Instruction in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman had put it on the Paper. The hon. Member who spoke last said that it was absolutely necessary to have some authority mentioned in the Bill, but he did not give them any reason for that statement, and there was a reason against it to the
850
extent that the Committee presided over by Lord Cromer definitely decided that there should be power of purchase, but that the body to make the purchase should be left to be determined afterwards by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Board of Trade did not quite correctly represent the attitude of the County Council on this matter, and in the proposal which he was going to make, and which he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would accept, he was going to make exactly the proposal which was made in regard to the County Council by Lord Cromer's Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman would add to his instruction words to this effect "or some other public body to be appointed by Parliament," he would vote for the instruction, but otherwise he must vote against it, He could not support the Amendment, for many reasons which had been pointed out. It was a perfectly impracticable proposal to set up an authority now, which was to be the purchasing authority so many years hence, if this proposal came into operation. And it was not, only impracticable for that reason, but because the democratic principle on which the hon. Gentleman relied must apply to local authorities who did not own their electrical supplies as well as to the local authorities who did. He thought, therefore, he might expect that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would himself suppot his suggestion, which was that the purchasing power should remain, but that it should be vested not definitely in the County Council, but in the County Council or some other body which Parliament might think was more fitted for the purpose. He thought he could convince the President of the Board of Trade that the proposal he made was the only possible proposal under the circumstances. He could understand that the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to put the Motion down in this form, but he was in a different position from a certain number of his own supporters, who were not very fond of this proposal, and if it was going to make it easier for him to move this instruction, he was quite right to do so, provided he did not do any injustice to any other body. The right hon.

851
Gentleman had to work with the tools he had got, and to make the best use he could of them. Let the light hon. Gentleman consider what the proposal meant. The district covered by this Bill was, he thought, three or four times the size of the area covered by the London County Council at this moment. The population within the London County Council area covered by the Bill was far more important at the moment than the population outside; but a constant change in this respect was going on, and it by no means followed that the business done by this new company in the County Council area would be the most important even under existing conditions of population. The company could only enter into competition with existing bodies supplying electricity on terms so onerous that for practical purposes such competition was out of the question. So that, obviously, their business would not grow in districts now well supplied, but would more and more extend in the outer areas where there was not such a good supply. It would be unjust from every point of view if the body that created the largest part of the business was then left without any control. But there was a monetary consideration. If the company were successful, that would represent a valuable asset at the end of the purchasing period. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose that a valuable sum of money due to areas outside the London County Council area should be transferred from those to the London County Council itself? There was, as another consideration, a possibility that the municipal tendencies of Members below the gangway opposite might run their course, and that it would come to be regarded that the best way of running these businesses was to lease them to private enterprise. [Loud MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!" and "No."] He threw that out as a suggestion, but, of course, hon. Members opposite might know a great deal more about the future than he did, and they might be right and he might be wrong, but it could not be denied that it was a possible suggestion. They must remember that the monetary consideration was just the same whether the undertaking was worked by the London County Council or by another municipal body or under
852
lease, and supposing that happened and the undertaking were leased again to a company, did the right hon. Gentleman actually suppose that the monetary payment for that lease was to be given, not to the districts where the money was made, but to the London County Council, which had nothing to do with the way in which it was made? Obviously this was a consideration which must be seriously entertained. He dared say the hon. Gentleman would, tell them that if the bulk of the business was done outside the London County Council area, Parliament could alter the conditions imposed by the Bill. That was perfectly true; it could alter anything, but he asked the House to remember that it would be a long time before it was known definitely whether this was going to be a profitable enterprise or not. If the name of the County Council alone appeared in the Bill, during all the years between now and the time of purchase the County Council would regard it as an asset to which they were entitled, a vested interest would have grown up which was to be their property, and Parliament could not alter the conditions without much greater difficulty and appearance of hardship than would be the case if the proposal he was making were adopted, and the London County Council were put in as a possible authority, and some other authority were also recognised as possible by Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept his suggestion, it was his responsibility, and he should vote against the instruction because it seemed so unjust. His proposal was that it should be left to some public body to be appointed by Parliament. He could not himself conceive any reason whatever why the right hon. Gentleman should object to it except, as he had suggested, that it might be more agreeable to his friends below the gangway, who, he supposed, were not in favour of the proposal as a whole, to have the London County Council alone named as the purchasing authority. If an outsider could judge of these matters, he did not think it would remove the opposition in the least of the hon. Members below the gangway who objected to private enterprise on any terms. On the contrary, they would recognise that, if

853
the Bill were to go through, and if there were to be a purchasing authority, it was only fair and just that that authority should be decided upon when Parliament knew what the conditions were to be.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Dulwich for the speech he had made. He must have cleared the air very considerably. He had said he would only vote for the instruction if there were included in it a definite injunction to the Committee that the purchasing authority should be some body to be set up at some distant future date.
MR. BONAR LAW: Or the London County Council.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid he might point out to the hon. Gentleman that that was precisely what the Bill did. It was because the Bill did that that they attached so very great importance to the instruction the President of the Board of Trade was moving. The Bill itself said that the undertaking of the company should be liable to be purchased by any county council or joint-committee of county councils, body, or trustees, or other public body or body who might be authorised by Parliament to purchase the undertaking. It was precisely because that was so very clear and definite that the London Members, or at any rate a large proportion of London Members, were anxious that the House should once and for all settle this question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich wanted the question postponed, and said that possibly the municipal idea would then have run out its course. He and those acting with him were, however, firmly convinced, and had been throughout, that the only right solution of the question of electricity supply in London was that it should be in the possession of the municipal authorities, and it was because they were so firmly convinced of the necessity that this undertaking should be in the hand of the municipal authorities that they preferred to make it perfectly certain that this would ultimately be the case. If the question were left
854
unsettled for another four or five years things might happen both inside and outside the House that might make it impossible for them to secure to posterity the possession of this undertaking. It was, he could not help thinking, unfortunate that the debate should take place on the Second Reading of a Bill for which no one in the House, neither a Government Department nor a private Member, was responsible. The Bill emanated from private individuals, and, of course, could not expect to command the support of the House in its entirety. It would have been very much better that the Bill should have come before them after having undergone the investigation of a Committee; but that, of course, was impossible, and it was because they were anxious that a Committee of the House of Commons, filled with responsibility to do what it could for the best for London, should consider the proposals in the Bill and see whether they could not be so shaped that they would be ultimately for the best advantage of London, that they were so anxious that it should get to a Committee with this one definite instruction, that the purchasing authority should be the London County Council.
MR. BONAR LAW: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I understood him to say that the London County Council was anxious that it alone should be put in as the purchasing authority. If so, that is not so. They put the proposal I have urged before the House to-night.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid he did not say that the London County Council had done that. He said the London Liberal Members were anxious for it. Now that the hon. Gentleman had challenged him as to what the County Council did say, the House should know what the views of the County Council were. He had the Report issued by Mr. Felix Cassell, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, of 22nd July, 1908, in which it was said that the President of the Board of Trade would on the Second Reading move an instruction to the Committee dealing with the Bill, to the effect that the Council should be

855
named as the purchasing authority. The Report concluded—
"We do not think that the Council should oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, or that it should offer any resistance to the instructions referred to above."
He therefore thought he was justified in saying that the County Council, even as at present constituted, would favour the instruction before the House.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he was very sorry to interrupt, but this really was a question of fact open to everybody who read the evidence. What the hon. Member had read was a statement by a member of the Council, by the chairman of a committee; but the evidence on which he (the hon. Member speaking) made his statement was the definite proposal urged in Lord Cromer's Committee by the County Council.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid he thought that was perfectly accurate. The present County Council appeared before Lord Cromer's Committee, and at that time they agreed to the Report of the Bill, but it was after that that negotiations took place with the President of the Board of Trade. The Parliamentary Committee then brought up this formal Report, and it came before the Council and was adopted. He wished for one moment to deal with the powers which the County Council or public body or central authority proposed by the hon. Member for Dartford would purchase. He must, with great respect, say that the provisions of the Bill, even though drafted by a private company and not by any Member, had been greatly misrepresented as regarded the actual powers the company were to have and to sell. It had been represented as a huge monopoly. If they had felt it was a monopoly in any shape or form, or that it could be made into a monopoly, they would have been its most strenuous opponents. It was because they had looked into the question carefully and had come to the contrary conclusion that they had advocated it.
MR. LOUGHon a point of order asked whether it was in order to discuss the instruction broadly,
856
or whether they must keep to the limited point of the Amendment. He did not want in the least to stop his hon. friend, but he would like to hear whether they might also follow and discuss the instruction broadly.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): An Amendment having been moved with regard to the purchasing authority, we must keep to that point till it is disposed of. Then it will be open for some further Amendments to be moved when the main question is again set up.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid he quite understood, thoroughly agreed with, and bowed to the ruling; but he did not think it would interfere with the course of his argument. He was going to point out what was the substance of the matter which would have to be purchased by the authority proposed by the hon. Member for Dartford. There was no monopoly to be purchased. It was perfectly true there were clauses in the Bill, drafted as it was by the company, which might be turned into a monopoly and become as dangerous to the public welfare as the water companies or the tram companies as they existed; but those clauses had never yet been before a Committee of the House, and it had already been announced by the President of the Board of Trade in the debate last July that those clauses would have to be considered carefully, not only by a Committee but also by the House.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going rather into the merits of the Bill than keeping to the limited purpose of the Amendment.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid that at any rate the matter was perfectly open to the consideration of the House on a future occasion. Even under the Bill as it stood, there were no powers which could be really called monopoly powers. The power of purchasing other undertakings might be turned into a monopoly power.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not the limited point of the Amendment.
*MR. DICKINSONthought he might be allowed to say that the powers of the company would be the power of producing electricity and of selling it to those distributers who required it. There would be no compulsion to take it, or on anyone to receive it. That seemed to him a very important consideration from all points of view, and especially from the point of view of his hon. friend the Member for Dartford. Representing the interests of the Dartford Council, the hon. Member objected to something which he thought would place the London County Council in a position of supremacy over the Dartford Council. It would do no such thing. All it would do would be to enable the Loudon County Council, in the place of the company, to offer cheap electricity to those distributers who desired to have it. Whatever was the purchasing authority, the promoting company would, with few exceptions, have no power of dealing direct with the consumers, and therefore, the interest of the consumer and the interest of the public would be entirely in the hands of the distributers and the councils in London. That being so, of course, the question arose whether they could appoint another public authority as producer in the place of the London County Council, but that proposal had been before several Committees, all of whom had come to the conclusion that the County Council must be the authority. Those who advocated this proposal did not desire to injure the places that surrounded London, but were anxious to assist them in every way, and if any proposal could be made which would really be better than this proposal for establishing an authority for the provision of this current electricity which would be sold to the various distributers, they would be only too willing to consider it. He could not help thinking that that was a matter for Committee and not for discussion on the Second Reading. He hoped the House would decide that this question of how the supply of bulk electricity was to be furnished in the future should be settled now once for all, and that they would be able to go ahead with the full knowledge of the respective
858
positions of the present distributers, the present companies, the new company, the London County Council, and the other authorities. It was of the utmost importance, in view of the grave difficulty that existed in regard to the purchase of the existing companies, that this question should be settled from the municipal point of view, and he trusted that the House would allow the instruction to pass.
*MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid the hon. Member for St. Pancras had suggested at the beginning of his speech that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dulwich was hardly necessary, because the point was met by the Bill which laid it down that the undertaking should be liable to purchase by any county council, or joint-committee of county councils, body of trustees or other public authority or body who might be authorised by Parliament to purchase the undertaking. He did not think the point of the hon. Member for Dulwich was met by this Clause 67, because under it, no authority was definitely named, and the point was that unless some definite instruction was laid down in the Bill further legislation would be necessary before the undertaking could be purchased, and the objection they felt to leaving the matter in this vague state was that Parliament might possibly neglect again to legislate on the subject, and that the purchase powers which were laid down as being in the power of various different bodies might in that way be allowed to lapse unless it was put down once for all that the County Council, or some other body, should be constituted as the purchasing authority. In any case Clause 67 would be overridden by the Instruction of the President of the Board of Trade. If they would also accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dulwich they would guard against the danger of the purchase powers being allowed to lapse and at the same time would not hamper the action of Parliament if in the future they were to decide that somebody still to be created were to take the place of the County Council as purchasing authority. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dartford was hardly a practicable

859
one. It was not reasonable to expect the House to legislate for the representation of borough councils fifty years hence. It was quite reasonable to say that the County Council or some other body named by Parliament should exercise these powers, but it was impossible at present to say how the borough councils were to be represented. The difficulty was that if they made the borough councils the purchasing authority they would only have a part of the area represented, because he thought it was only about half the borough councils who had electrical undertakings in their hands. Another difficulty was that under the present law it would be almost impossible for the borough councils to buy out even the distributing agencies, because there was so much overlapping that the cost of buying out would be absolutely prohibitive, owing to the fact that under the Electric Lighting Acts allowance had to be made for severance, and as a result of that it was quite certain that they would have to have some central body. He personally felt it was very difficult to imagine a central body administering electric power and electric lighting schemes unless it was directly elected. They had been told the Water Board was a parallel case. He did not think it was, because after all the Water Board administered water, which was a universal want, and they would probably never reach the day in London when electricity would be used by everybody. Anyhow it was a long way off. But everybody must use water. He imagined even if hon. Members drank alcohol they occasionally washed. He expected the electors of London would not allow an indirectly elected body to charge the rates with the enormous capital expenditure which would be necessary to buy out the existing electric companies, and especially this bulk supply, and for that reason they must have a directly elected central body. His own feeling was that it ought to be the London County Council Hon. Members had made rather too much of the point that it was not fair for the London County Council to go outside its own area. After all there was a precedent for it. Although the borough councils in London did not supply consumers beyond their borough boundaries it was quite a common thing in the provinces
860
for boroughs to get power to supply gas, water, and even electricity beyond their boundaries, by agreement. This Bill did not propose in any way to compel outside authorities to take the electricity of this bulk supply company, and he therefore thought it would be quite safe to constitute the London County Council as the purchasing authority. At the same time he hoped the Amendment suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Dulwich would be accepted. If, however, it was not, he should certainly vote for the instruction of the President of the Board of Trade, because he thought it was most necessary that there should be some central body in London which should take an interest in the organisation of electric supplies, and which should take a comprehensive view of the whole matter.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,)thought the House would feel that, whatever might be thought or said about the London and District Bill on its merits and as a main proposition, this debate had been conclusive with regard to the special point before the House. From almost every quarter of the House they had had speeches on the subject of who should be the ultimate purchasing authority and those who had followed the debate would, he thought, agree, if they were forced to choose between the proposition he had put forward and the proposition advanced by his hon. friend the Member for Dart-ford, that there was, even among all the tangles of London electricity, one problem which was settled. The hon. Member for Dulwich had suggested an addition to the instruction he had put on the Paper, namely, that they should say the County Council "or some other authority to be fixed by Parliament." He did not see any grave objection to those words in themselves, but he would recommend the House not to adopt them. The Government were seeking by this instruction to indicate a general policy for the future. They were seeking to affirm a principle which would certainly govern these Bills so far as they might progress, and which might govern other Bills if these Bills should not reach maturity. What was that principle? It was a large and simple principle. It

861
was that ultimately, and, for his part, he hoped as soon as possible, there should be one combined, extensive, uniform system of electrical supply for London—for the Metropolitan area—and that the supply should be under the control of the government of London. That was the large, general proposition, and, however they might differ—and the subject was so complicated and vexed, and there were so many cross-currents in it that any man might be pardoned for differing from another—he had the greatest respect for those who took a different view from that which he had put forward—however they might differ upon the main question, surely all those who, from every point of view, would wish to champion the general and large progressive interest of London government could unite in pointing to the London County Council as the future main authority over the electrical supply. He was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman opposite who last spoke and who represented the opinion of the ruling force on the London County Council at the present time, speak no less strongly in support of the prerogative of that great body to be the authority entrusted with this duty than his hon. friends behind him who had spoken. It was not only a question of providing for an authority which was to administer the electrical supply of London when the purchase clauses matured. They had to think of the interval, and they were proposing to assign to a public body purchase rights over a private undertaking, and those rights did not operate until a good number of years had passed. What a safeguard it was to the public interest to vest those rights clearly and unmistakably in a powerful and existing public body, and not to leave it to an embryonic creation which had not yet come into being, something vague, which a Parliament of the future might possibly or might not select or create. How much better it was to have some powerful, trusty custodian of such purchase rights as were secured by the Bill and would ultimately operate. And he was bound to say that when they came to the special question of the merits of the Amendment he felt even greater confidence. As had been pointed out his hon. friend had shown in his speech the vice of his Amendment; he had supported representation on high
862
democratic grounds, and yet by his Amendment he would exclude nearly half the districts concerned from any share in his proposed representation.
MR. ROWLANDS: Not necessarily.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was so because the Amendment was to substitute for the London County Council "a central authority composed of representatives of the municipal authorities owning their electrical supplies within the area covered by the Bill." There were seventy-seven local authorities within the area, and of these, thirty-five did not own electrical undertakings and so would not be represented at all. The hon. Member had allowed these to slip from his memory, though among them were the City of London, Westminster and Paddington, a great part of central and of southern London. His hon. friend asked the House to create a purchasing body in preference to the London County Council, which would be less representative, less responsible, less competent than the County Council with its experience and ever-growing skill and capacity. This new body would have no rating power, a special statute would be required to effect the purchase, and even if all the difficulties were surmounted, a body would be created that would be but a bad imitation of that Water Board which had been severely criticised on both sides of the House. The question had now been discussed at some length, and he suggested that the House should come to a decision upon the Amendment so that other aspects of the question might be raised by his right hon. friend the Member for Islington and others.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Dartford. If the outside areas were compelled to come into this scheme, then they ought to be represented. Those who represented the London County Council seemed to have forgotten the main bone of contention. He happened to be on the Committee which considered the last Bill dealing with the subject promoted by the London County Council. It was proposed under that Bill, as was proposed on this occasion,

863
to take in twenty odd authorities which were not within the jurisdiction of the London County Council at all. Those twenty public authorities could not by any manner of means have any representation on the London County Council, and yet they would be obliged under this Bill at the end of the stated period to sell to the County Council the undertakings which they had secured at great expense. That was a proposal which was now being defended by hon. Members who professed to be Progressives and democrats. The hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport twitted the hon. Member for Dartford with having forgotten his democratic principles. Was it democratic to compel twenty public bodies, well known for their proper and decent management of their affairs, to be dispossessed of the undertakings they had built up with so much labour, energy, and expense, and this without having any representation whatever upon the body taking over their undertakings? Most of the opposition to the London County Council's attempting to deal with this subject of electric supply for London had not come from the authorities within its jurisdiction, but from those twenty or thirty outside local authorities which the London County Council wanted to sweep into its net without giving them any voice whatever in the administration. The hon. Member for Dartford, he understood, was willing to withdraw his Motion, but he objected to that course because he wished to register his protest in the division lobby. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the attempt to include within the jurisdiction of the London County Council those outside areas was not a new proposition, and that the same thing was often done in the case of other large towns, and he mentioned Newcastle as an instance.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not think I mentioned the case of Newcastle at all.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid other hon. Members had mentioned Newcastle. At any rate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds stated that in other towns the taking in of outside areas was often
864
done in the case of gas, water, and electric supply. He wished to point out to the House that the areas to be taken in under this Bill were not the suburbs which sprang up outside provincial towns, but included large towns, and one of the districts to be brought under the jurisdiction of the London County Council was Croydon, which had a population of over 100,000 people, and possessed its own tramway system. Croydon had already proved that it could produce electricity in bulk as cheaply as any body under the control of the London County Council. Such great municipalities as East Ham and West Ham, which were not now in the London County Council area, were to be included under this scheme. Such cases as Bromley in Kent, Kingston-on-Thames, Richmond, and other places, embracing hundreds of thousands of people were to be swept into the net of the London County Council by this proposal. It was surprising to him to notice the peculiar harmony which had so suddenly been proclaimed between the Progressive and Moderate members of the London County Council. This was an attempt by a private corporation to secure powers to compete with outside municipal authorities who had spent millions upon their undertakings, which they were being compelled by agreement to sell upon a shadowy kind of representation. It remained to be proved whether or not under this scheme those outside areas would get a cheaper supply. Was it a sensible proposal to solve this problem by including twenty or thirty outside local authorities who had petitioned against this Bill, and would insist upon debating every line of it? He asked them to consider whether in putting forward these proposals and especially the proposal that the undertaking should be controlled by a private syndicate, they were not running the risk which they wanted to avoid. If the County Council had attempted to deal properly with the County Council area alone, and if they had left the outside districts for the present at least to shift for themselves, there was a sufficient population under the jurisdiction of the Council to enable them to show that they could give as cheap a supply of electricity as it was possible to give. [Cries of "No."] He maintained

865
that was so. He had listened to the evidence of experts, who said that the inclusion of the outside population did not make the slightest difference in the cost of bulk supply. That being so, why did the members of the County Council, whether Progressives or Moderates, insist upon including the outside authorities within the scope of their purchase clause without giving any representation? They were told that it was democratic to refuse representation. It was a curious illustration of democracy. He did not believe that Parliament would allow this body to take possession of millions of capital, and of growing areas that had been developed by the energy, foresight, and municipal enterprise of the people of those districts, without giving them representation. It was a moral certainty that the proposal would not succeed. Those who paid the rates would require to know something about the price. When he listened to the speeches of the Progressive members, and even the Moderate members, of the London County
Council, he could not help thinking that they were not nearly so anxious to supply cheap electricity to London as to extend their boundaries over the districts to which they did not propose to give any representation at all.
MR. ROWLANDSsaid it had been admitted in the debate by speaker after speaker that the local areas were entitled to some representation, and, therefore, the object he had in moving the Amendment had been served. He regretted that the President of the Board of Trade had not been able to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Dulwich. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Leave to withdraw being refused,
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 267.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, James (Harrow)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gill, A. H.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Clough, William

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clynes, J. R.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Barker, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barnard, E. B.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Beale, W. P.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Beck, A. Cecil

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hart-Davies, T.

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cox, Harold

Higham, John Sharp

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Crossley, William J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Bennett, E. N.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Bertram, Julius

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Black, Arthur W.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duckworth, James

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Branch, James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kekewich, Sir George

Brigg, John

Essex, R. W.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Brodie, H. C.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Brooke, Stopford

Everett, R. Lacey

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Fenwick, Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ferens, T. R.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Cameron, Robert

Findlay, Alexander

Levy, Sir Maurice

Lewis, John Herbert

Nuttall, Harry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Paulton, James Mellor

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sutherland, J. E.

Lupton, Arnold

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

M'Callum, John M.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

M'Crae, Sir George

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Raphael, Herbert H.

Tomkinson, James

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rees, J. D.

Toulmin, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Verney, F. W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

Waring, Walter

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Marnham, F. J.

Roch, Walter V. (Pembroke)

Waterlow, D. S.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Watt, Henry A.

Massie, J.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Menzies, Walter

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sears, J. E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seaverns, J. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Mond, A.

Shackleton, David James

Wiles, Thomas

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Morrell, Philip

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Napier, T. B.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Norman, Sir Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanger, H. Y.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nunnetti, Joseph P.

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholls, George

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J.

Nield, Herbert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

O'Grady, J.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)

Harwood, George

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brace, William

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Hodge, John

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hudson, Walter

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Jowett, F. W.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Snowden, P.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stanier, Beville

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Keswick, William

Steadman, W. C.

Cooper, G. J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Summerbell, T.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Crooks, William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Curran, Peter Francis

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Moore, William

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOB IHE NOES—Mr. Rowlands and Mr. Whitehead.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Fardell, Sir T. George

Myer, Horatio

Main Question again proposed.
MR. LOUGHsaid that they found themselves that evening in a
868
most unfortunate position. There was no disposition on his part, or on the part of some of his friends for whom he spoke,

869
to give the Government any trouble whatever. This was a private Bill, and he regretted that the Government should have interfered with it at all. He did not like to be dragged into any quarrel with the hon. Member for Dart ford or the President of the Board of Trade. The people he wanted to get at were the promoters of this private Bill which he and his friends thought would inflict great injury on London. It was these gentlemen who should bring forward instructions and Amendments, and then they would be able to fight them in the open, and not the Government. He would point out that the instruction was most unsatisfactory when they came to examine its provisions. Everyone who had spoken on that side of the House was agreed that the purchase clause in the Bill was most unsatisfactory. The Secretary to the Board of Education stated that—
"He would not for a moment support the Bill were it not for the important Instruction to be proposed by the President of the Board of Trade, nor did he approve in the least of the proposed terms of purchase which had come from the House of Lords."
Now, nothing had been done to alter the terms of purchase. To lay it down that the London County Council should be the purchasing authority did not improve this wretched clause. He thought that the object the President of the Board of Trade had in view was too apparent. The right hon. Gentleman wished to pay some deference to the principle of municipal control. They all approved of that, but the House would remark the round-about way by which the right hon Gentleman endeavoured to establish that principle. At the present moment there were some forty local authorities with electric installations. The plan of the Government was to allow this
870
private company under Clause 77 of the Bill to acquire these local authorities' undertakings without coming to Parliament, then to give the company a free run for fifty-three years, and afterwards to protect London by allowing the County Council to purchase the undertaking. The Instruction simply said that the purchasing authority should be the London County Council. What did the London County Council get? The right to purchase; but all rights to purchase depended on the terms on which the purchase might be effected, and the right hon. Gentleman did not give them the slightest comfort wit regard to terms. What did his eloquent supporters say in regard to this matter? The junior Member for Devonport was most eloquent, but not on the subject of terms. That hon. Member always thought that he was a London Member, but as a matter of fact he represented a very distant part of the Kingdom. Then his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education also supported the instruction. In fact, all the worst parts of this proposal seemed to come from new Members from Scotland, who hardly had the time to learn the accent before they came to teach old-fashioned, quiet going, London Members how to do their duty to London. The junior Member for Devonport said that the President of the Board of Trade would attend to the purchase clause, and that he would put in what the Liberal Government did in 1870, in regard to the tramways. That arrangement was that the companies should have a free run for twenty-one years, and that then the purchase would be made without the payment for any goodwill. They had heard a good deal about a split among London Members on this question. There was no split; London was solid,

871
and it was on the promise that they would get tramway terms, made on behalf of the Government by the Secretary to the Board of Education, that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried. Now they came down after three months of labour, and here was this miserable mouse of instruction which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The right hon. Gentleman might say that the instruction would be sent to the Committee upstairs, and that if the Committee did not do what was right with regard to terms, there would be another opportunity of considering the question. That was not exactly the position in which they should be placed. There was a clause before the House. They knew what the Committee thought of it. But it was proposed to give free rein for fifty-three years to these private monopolies, the longest term of payment ever proposed to be given in any Bill. That was in the Bill, and when they came to the instruction dealing with it, it should not have been left to the Secretary to the Board of Education to give a pious opinion on the matter. There should have been in the instruction some recognition of the fact that the terms in the Bill were highly unsatisfactory; and that if they were not improved in Committee, the House would have to deal with the matter when the Bill came back for a Third Reading. He hoped that the Prime Minister, whom he was glad to see was present, would give them another opportunity of considering this question at 8.15 p.m., and he promised the right hon. Gentleman that he would put down a fresh and definite instruction, and that if he obtained an opportunity of doing so, there would be such a volume of opinion behind it, as to what the terms of purchase ought
872
to be, that he believed the Government would hesitate to decline to accept it. He proposed tramway terms. What could be the objection to that? It might be said that twenty-one years was too short a period; but let seven or fourteen years more be added if need be. The great principle to establish was that, as under tramways purchase, there was no good-will. He wanted no goodwill, and if they knocked out the goodwill, the Government would effect a great deal in connection with the Bill. Twenty or thirty years would be ridiculous. Some of his hon. friends suggested twenty-one years good-will, but he did not want to have any Bill with goodwill in it. He was in favour of the principle which he learned in better days from the Secretary to the Board of Education, the Member for North St. Pancras, and the junior Member for Devonport. Why had these Gentlemen all changed their minds? It was bcause they had sustained a defeat at the polls in London. They had not got the Parliamentary temperament yet. They must learn to keep their tempers and stick to their principles, and that would enable them to carry their principles sometimes to a victorious conclusion. He had not changed his belief in regard to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of wicked people who were behind this opposition; he himself was behind it, and he could quote his speech. All he could say was that his instruction at the present moment did not in the least meet their opposition, and as to the terms of purchase, it contained nothing whatever. It did not improve the purchase clause in the Bill one iota, and did not fulfil the terms laid down by the Secretary to the Board of Education. He had been told that he could not take

873
the opinion of the House upon this question, unless the Prime Minister could give them a little more time. If he did, he would promise him that they would have this matter dealt with as a positive instruction, and he would take a vote of the House upon it.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he generally agreed with a great deal that had fallen from his right hon. friend. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had shown very clearly that, whatever opinion this House might have formed upon the merits of the Bill, it was not the question before the House. That question was a much more narrow and restricted one, and his right hon. friend, in the course of his eloquent remarks on the general practice, did not use any argument at all against the instruction which he had put upon the Paper, and upon which the House would be asked to vote. The right hon. Gentleman directed his arguments to the general question of the London and District Bill, a very wide and vastly complicated question—how vast and complicated the House might gather from the size of the book containing the evidence taken before the Committee in another place. He had never desired to commit the House or the Committee, His Majesty's Government or the Board of Trade, to the support of this Bill as it stood upon its merits and he agreed that there was a very solid foundation for a good many of the arguments which had been used that evening. But there was one thing he had, desired on behalf of the Government, and that was to press and urge upon the House the proper, scientific, and regular consideration of this important and complicated question by the only method by which justice could be done to such a
874
proposal—namely, by careful and impartial examination at the hands of a Select Committee of the House. No Member of the House, if he had stood in his place, could have taken any other course than that which he had felt it right to take. No one denied that it would be of immense practical benefit to millions of people if cheap and abundant electricity could be supplied on terms more in accordance with those possessed by other great cities. Year after year measures of this kind had been put forward to achieve this end. The ingenuity of every one was exhausted in trying to steer this large public object through all the cross-currents which obstructed and delayed it. Everyone knew what the object was; everyone knew as the years went by that the object had not been achieved and that there was no immediate prospect of that object being obtained, except by means of the proposals they had before them; and when a proposal had been examined for thirty or forty sittings of a Committee of some of the ablest men in the country, and embodied in a Bill of eighty or 100 clauses of great complexity; when it was supported by a large proportion of the Liberal Members for London; when it was brought before the House in these circumstances, and in a year when unemployment had reached its maximum, and when private business had reached its minimum, he said that, whatever opinion might be entertained about this or that particular clause, it would be improper and disrespectful and almost indecent procedure on the part of Parliament to fling such a Bill out without paying it the respect of a proper and scientific examination before a Committee. He ventured to say that that advice would

875
be given by anyone who was called upon to represent an important Government Department, and the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite chose the Second Reading, in defiance of all the principles he had always heard enunciated by their leaders, to cast their votes against the Government, showed how completely faction, and faction alone had led to their action. He did not hold that His Majesty's Government were committed to the merits of these Bills.
MR. H. C. LEA: Then why put the Government Whips on?
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would try to explain if the House would permit. What he did consider the Government responsible for was the securing of proper consideration at the hands of a Committee. The Committee was now examining the Bill. The Board of Trade would have access to that Committee and would watch the progress of the Bill through the Committee. He very largely agreed with his right hon. friend that it was a very doubtful question whether the local authorities affected by the Bill ought not to have a right of veto on any compulsory powers of entering into their area. That was a question which must be very carefully examined before the Committee, and one of the matters which the Board of Trade would carefully watch. Then there was the question of the purchase terms, a most complicated question. There never had been a purchase clause in a bulk supply Bill before; but he was prepared to say that the purchase terms in their present form were not satisfactory, and it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to represent that before the Committee when they were
876
called upon to give evidence. He agreed that Clause 77, on which his right hon. friend based the gravamen of his attack, was objectionable. Every single clause of the kind had been objected to by the Board of Trade, and he was prepared to give the House a pledge that, if that clause appeared in the Bill when it came back to the House, he would not only not support it, but would counsel the House to reject the Bill. But these were questions for Committee. He asked the House not to ride off on the question of the merits of the Bill, for what they were really dealing with was the proper procedure to be applied to this complex and difficult question. All these matters would be examined before the Committee, and the House and the Government would remain perfectly free to take their own course when the Bill came back. For his part he intended to reserve his opinion, as His Majesty's Government reserved theirs, on the final action to be taken, until they had the Report of a thoroughly competent Committee as to how far these clauses were reconcilable with the public interest. He feared that what he had been saying was irrelevant, because the question before the House was not the merits of the Bill, but whether the House should take this opportunity of affirming the large general principle that, across all the confusion and all the cross-currents of electrical enterprise in London, there should be one general line of advance marked out—that was, the establishment of one united system of electric supply in the London area under the control of the government of London.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he did not like the Government's system of municipalisation, which

877
was first to set up a monopoly and then to give the community power to buy it up. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was very desirable to give to London a cheap supply of electricity, but that was not the way to do so, nor could that object be obtained by any form of purchasing clause, because they could not accomplish two incompatible objects. It was impossible to have a clause which would provide fair terms of purchase thirty or forty years hence and at the same time provide for the proper development and growth of the undertaking in the interval. If this House enacted a fair purchasing clause, it must inevitably have a prejudicial effect upon the supply in the interval. They could not have it both ways. This was really an attempt to square the circle. At Question time they had the object-lesson of what had happened in the case of the National Telephone Company. There the purchasing clause had had the effect that the undertaking had been starved. The company had not developed its business, but on the contrary was refusing to take
orders and to spend money and was dismissing its employees. That was the inevitable effect of the purchase clause. He was not prepared to discuss the purchase clause of this Bill, though he agreed that the terms of it would be very onerous to the London County Council. The right hon. Gentleman and some colleagues of his in the representation of London had now completely changed their attitude. They were formerly all in favour of municipal control, and voted against a Bill which was in substance the same as this. He supposed they would presently vote in favour of the Bill and say the position was changed, which he denied.
Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 268.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brodie, H. C.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Brooke, Stopford

Duckworth, James

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bryce, J. Annan

Essex, R. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Everett, R. Lacey

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferens, T. R.

Barker, John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Findlay, Alexander

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barnard, E. B.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Beale, W. P.

Clough, William

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Beauchamp, E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Beck, A. Cecil

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Bell, Richard

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Gulland, John W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Bennett, E. N.

Cox, Harold

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crosfield, A. H.

Hart-Davies, T.

Bertram, Julius

Crossley, William J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Brigg, John

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Higham, John Sharp

Bright, J. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Holt, Richard Durning

Mond, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Horniman, Emslie John

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Morrell, Philip

Stanger, H. Y.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh,

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Napier, T. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Norman, Sir Henry

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Kekewich, Sir George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Lehmann, R. C.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Tomkinson, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Rainy, A. Rolland

Toulmin, George

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ure, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Verney, F. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rees, J. D.

Waring, Walter

M'Callum, John M.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waterlow, D. S.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Watt, Henry A.

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Whitehead, Rowland

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Sears, J. E.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Seaverns, J. H.

Massie, J.

Seely, Colonel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Menzies, Walter

Sherwell, Arthur James

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Simon, John Allsebrook

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crooks, William

Joynson-Hicks, William

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Curran, Peter Francis

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kerry, Earl of

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kimber, Sir Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Baldwin, Stanley

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Barnes, G. N.

Fletcher, J. S.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Glover, Thomas

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bowerman, C. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Iver, Sir Lewis

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Brace, William

Gordon, J.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Branch, James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Gretton, John

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bull, Sir William James

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Moore, William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morpeth, Viscount

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Cave, George

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Myer, Horatio

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Clynes, J. R.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholls, George

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Helmsley, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nield, Herbert

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Hill, Sir Clement

O'Grady, J.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Hills, J. W.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Cooper, G. J.

Hodge, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Percy, Earl

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Craik, Sir Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

880

881

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Radford, G. H.

Shackleton, David James

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Renwick, George

Snowden, P.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Stanier, Beville

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Steadman, W. C.

Younger, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Summerbell, T.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Sutherland, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. Ernest Lamb.

Rowlands, J.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Valentia, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Walsh, Stephen

Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 212; Noes, 79. (Division List, No. 269.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hodge, John

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cox, Harold

Holt, Richard Durning

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Crooks, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Crosfield, A. H.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Crossley, William J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Curran, Peter Francis

Hudson, Walter

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barker, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barnard, E. B.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Kekewich, Sir George

Beale, W. P.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kerry, Earl of

Beauchamp, E.

Dobson, Thomas W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beck, A. Cecil

Duckworth, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Essex, R. W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Bennett, E. N.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Everett, R. Lacey.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bertram, Julius

Ferens, T. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Black, Arthur W.

Findlay, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bowerman, C. W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Brace, William

Gill, A. H.

Lupton, Arnold

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Branch, James

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brigg, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Bright, J. A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Crae, Sir George

Brodie, H. C.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brooke, Stopford

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Micking, Major G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Mallet, Charles E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gulland, John W.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Massie, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcest'r

Menzies, Walter

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Clough, William

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Molteno, Percy Alport

Clynes, J. R.

Hart-Davies, T.

Mond, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harwood, George

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morrell, Philip

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Myer, Horatio

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Napier, George T. B.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Nicholls, George

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Norman, Sir Henry

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tomkinson, James

Nuttall, Harry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Toulmin, George

O'Grady, J.

Sears, J. E.

Ure, Alexander

Paulton, James Mellor

Seaverns, J. H.

Verney, F. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Seely, Colonel

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shackleton, David James

Walsh, Stephen

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Charles Edw, (Stafford)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sherwell, Arthur James

Waring, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Waterlow, D. S.

Radford, G. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Watt, Henry A.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Snowden, P.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitehead, Rowland

Rees, J. D.

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Summerbell, T.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Sutherland, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Roch, Walter, F. (Pembroke)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Ashley, W. W.

Gordon, J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Nield, Herbert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Percy, Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barnes, G. N.

Helmsley, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks-

Hill, Sir Clement

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, W.

Renwick, George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Bowles, G. Stewart

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rowlands, J.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Keswick, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanier, Beville

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Iver, Sir Lewis

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Younger, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mersey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Bull and Mr. Cave.

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill a provision conferring purchasing powers on the London County Council. That any person affected by such a provision shall be entitled to be heard before the
Committee upon any Petition presented not later than 22nd October.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty minutes after Eleven o'clock.